Perioperative and early oncological outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in morbidly obese patients: A propensity score-matched study

Global Robotics Institute, Florida Hospital Celebration Health, Celebration, FL, USA.
BJU International (Impact Factor: 3.53). 03/2013; 113(1). DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2013.11798.x
Source: PubMed


To evaluate the perioperative and pathological outcomes associated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in morbidly obese men.

Patients and methods:
Between January 2008 and March 2012, 3041 patients underwent RARP at our institution by a single surgeon (V.P.). In all, 44 patients were considered morbidly obese with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥40 kg/m(2) . A propensity score-matched analysis was conducted using multivariable analysis to identify comparable groups of patients with a BMI of ≥40 and <40 kg/m(2) . Perioperative, pathological outcomes and complications were compared between the two matched groups.

There was no significant difference in operative time. However, the mean estimated blood loss was higher in morbidly obese patients, at a mean (sd) of 113 (41) vs 130 (27) mL (P = 0.049). Anastomosis was more difficult in morbidly obese patients (P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in laterality, ease of nerve sparing, or transfusion rate between the groups. There were no intraoperative complications in either group. Postoperative pathological outcomes were similar between the groups. Differences in positive surgical margins and ease of nerve sparing approached statistical significance (P = 0.097, P = 0.075 respectively). Postoperative complication rates, pain scores, length of stay and indwelling catheter duration were similar in the groups.

RARP in morbidly obese patients is technically demanding. However, it can be accomplished with acceptable morbidity and resource use. In the hands of an experienced surgeon, it is a safe procedure and offers beneficial clinical outcomes.

Download full-text


Available from: Oscar Schatloff, Oct 13, 2014
14 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate the impact of body mass index (BMI) on pathologic and functional outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). We evaluated 400 consecutive patients who underwent RALP at the Mayo Clinic between 2002 and 2006. Patients were categorized as normal weight (BMI <25 kg/ m(2), n = 94), overweight (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m(2), n = 187), and obese (BMI >or=30 kg/m(2), n = 119). Clinicopathologic features of the groups were compared, and logistical regression analysis was used to assess the associations of BMI with pathologic and functional outcomes after RALP. Overweight and obese patients were more likely to have pT(3/4) disease (P = 0.0024) and pathologic Gleason 7 to 10 cancers (P < 0.0001). Overall, 9/94 (9.6%) normal-weight patients had a positive surgical margin (SM), compared with 25/187 (13.4%) overweight patients and 21/119 (17.6%) obese men (P = 0.087). On multivariate analysis, however, increasing BMI was not significantly associated with an increased risk of positive SM (odds ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval 0.72-1.76, P = 0.61). In addition, although obese men had longer operative times (P = 0.049) and greater intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.04), we found no association between BMI and transfusion requirement (P = 0.34), length of hospital stay (P = 0.54), or the rates of early (P = 0.37) or late (P = 0.86) complications. Moreover, in those patients with follow-up available at 1 year after RALP, obesity did not impact the return of continence (P = 0.62) or potency (P = 0.13). BMI was not an independent predictor of positive SM, complications, incontinence, or erectile dysfunction after RALP. These data suggest that RALP may offer equivalent margin rates and functional outcomes for patients across BMI.
    Journal of endourology / Endourological Society 07/2008; 22(7):1471-6. DOI:10.1089/end.2008.0056 · 1.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    BJU International 01/2014; 113(1):6. DOI:10.1111/bju.12183 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Journal of Clinical Oncology 04/2014; 32(14). DOI:10.1200/JCO.2013.54.9741 · 18.43 Impact Factor
Show more