Davy Benarroche1, Alessio Paladini1,2, Elisabeth Grobet-Jeandin1, Christophe Vaessen1, Jerome Parra1, Thomas Seisen1, Ugo Pinar1, Morgan Roupret3. 1. GRC 5, Predictive Onco-Urology, APHP, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hôpital, Urology, Sorbonne University, 75013, Paris, France. 2. Department of Medicine and Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy. 3. GRC 5, Predictive Onco-Urology, APHP, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hôpital, Urology, Sorbonne University, 75013, Paris, France. morgan.roupret@aphp.fr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a recently described surgical approach, but comparison with open simple prostatectomy (OSP) lack in the literature. We compared perioperative outcomes of OSP versus RASP. METHODS: Patients who underwent simple prostatectomy between 2017 and 2020 were included in this retrospective study. OSP was performed by the transvesical technique and RASP was performed with a DaVinci Xi robot, using the transvesical extraperitoneal approach. Perioperative and postoperative data were compared and complications risk factors for complications were identified. RESULTS: and limitations. Overall, 103 patients were included (median age 72 years [IQR = 67-76]). Forty-seven underwent RASP and 56 OSP. The median volume of the prostate gland was 130 mL [IQR = 100-180] in the RASP group and 126 mL [IQR = 100-160] in the OSP group. RASP was associated with a significant reduction in blood loss (median 200 vs. 400 mL; p < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (5 vs. 10 days; p < 0.001) and median catheterisation time (4 vs. 9 days; p < 0.001). In the RASP group, there were fewer grade ≥ 2 complications (2 (4.3%) vs. 13 (23.2%); p = 0.005) and less need for transfusions (0 vs. 6 (11%), p = 0.005). Preoperative prostate volume was a risk factor for complications (OR = 1.2 [95% CI 1.1-1.5]; p = 0.01) while robot-assisted surgery was a protective factor (OR 0.3 [95% CI 0.05-0.9]; p = 0.05). Functional outcomes between the two groups were identical at 12 months follow up. CONCLUSION: RASP is a safe and effective procedure. When compared with OSP, RASP was associated with decreased morbidity as well as reduced hospital stay and catheterisation time. Functional outcomes were comparable to the open approach.
PURPOSE: Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a recently described surgical approach, but comparison with open simple prostatectomy (OSP) lack in the literature. We compared perioperative outcomes of OSP versus RASP. METHODS: Patients who underwent simple prostatectomy between 2017 and 2020 were included in this retrospective study. OSP was performed by the transvesical technique and RASP was performed with a DaVinci Xi robot, using the transvesical extraperitoneal approach. Perioperative and postoperative data were compared and complications risk factors for complications were identified. RESULTS: and limitations. Overall, 103 patients were included (median age 72 years [IQR = 67-76]). Forty-seven underwent RASP and 56 OSP. The median volume of the prostate gland was 130 mL [IQR = 100-180] in the RASP group and 126 mL [IQR = 100-160] in the OSP group. RASP was associated with a significant reduction in blood loss (median 200 vs. 400 mL; p < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (5 vs. 10 days; p < 0.001) and median catheterisation time (4 vs. 9 days; p < 0.001). In the RASP group, there were fewer grade ≥ 2 complications (2 (4.3%) vs. 13 (23.2%); p = 0.005) and less need for transfusions (0 vs. 6 (11%), p = 0.005). Preoperative prostate volume was a risk factor for complications (OR = 1.2 [95% CI 1.1-1.5]; p = 0.01) while robot-assisted surgery was a protective factor (OR 0.3 [95% CI 0.05-0.9]; p = 0.05). Functional outcomes between the two groups were identical at 12 months follow up. CONCLUSION: RASP is a safe and effective procedure. When compared with OSP, RASP was associated with decreased morbidity as well as reduced hospital stay and catheterisation time. Functional outcomes were comparable to the open approach.
Authors: Panagiotis Mourmouris; Selcuk M Keskin; Andreas Skolarikos; Omer Burak Argun; Andreas A Karagiannis; Ilter Tufek; Can Obek; Ali Riza Kural Journal: BJU Int Date: 2018-10-15 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Vincenzo Serretta; Giuseppe Morgia; Luigi Fondacaro; Gaetano Curto; Antonio Lo bianco; Domenico Pirritano; Darwin Melloni; Fausto Orestano; Mario Motta; Michele Pavone-Macaluso Journal: Urology Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Christian Gratzke; Boris Schlenker; Michael Seitz; Alexander Karl; Peter Hermanek; Nicholas Lack; Christian G Stief; Oliver Reich Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Riccardo Autorino; Homayoun Zargar; Mirandolino B Mariano; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; René J Sotelo; Piotr L Chlosta; Octavio Castillo; Deliu V Matei; Antonio Celia; Gokhan Koc; Anup Vora; Monish Aron; J Kellogg Parsons; Giovannalberto Pini; James C Jensen; Douglas Sutherland; Xavier Cathelineau; Luciano A Nuñez Bragayrac; Ioannis M Varkarakis; Daniele Amparore; Matteo Ferro; Gaetano Gallo; Alessandro Volpe; Hakan Vuruskan; Gaurav Bandi; Jonathan Hwang; Josh Nething; Nic Muruve; Sameer Chopra; Nishant D Patel; Ithaar Derweesh; David Champ Weeks; Ryan Spier; Keith Kowalczyk; John Lynch; Andrew Harbin; Mohan Verghese; Srinivas Samavedi; Wilson R Molina; Emanuel Dias; Youness Ahallal; Humberto Laydner; Edward Cherullo; Ottavio De Cobelli; David D Thiel; Mikael Lagerkvist; Georges-Pascal Haber; Jihad Kaouk; Fernando J Kim; Estevao Lima; Vipul Patel; Wesley White; Alexander Mottrie; Francesco Porpiglia Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-12-04 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Harris E Foster; Michael J Barry; Philipp Dahm; Manhar C Gandhi; Steven A Kaplan; Tobias S Kohler; Lori B Lerner; Deborah J Lightner; J Kellogg Parsons; Claus G Roehrborn; Charles Welliver; Timothy J Wilt; Kevin T McVary Journal: J Urol Date: 2018-06-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: R Dotzauer; A La Torre; A Thomas; M P Brandt; K Böhm; R Mager; H Borgmann; W Jäger; M Kurosch; T Höfner; C Ruckes; A Haferkamp; I Tsaur Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-03-28 Impact factor: 4.226