Randomized Comparison of Extraperitoneal and Transperitoneal Access for Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
Department of Urology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14642, USA. Journal of Endourology
(Impact Factor: 1.71).
11/2007; 21(10):1199-202. DOI: 10.1089/end.2007.9906
Although extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is gaining popularity, the majority of these procedures are performed transperitoneally. The purpose of this study was to compare the transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches for RARP.
We randomized 62 consecutive patients undergoing RARP into two equal groups according to the route of access. The groups were evaluated for age, body mass index (BMI), preoperative serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) concentration, total operating time, estimated blood loss, specimen weight, pathologic Gleason score and stage, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and surgical-margin status.
No significant differences were noted the extraperitoneal and transperitoneal groups with respect total operative time (181 v 191 minutes), blood loss (199 v 163 mL), pathologic Gleason score (6.6 v 6.7), specimen weight (53 v 48 g), or positive-margin status (0 v 1 patient). There were no significant differences in age (56 v 59 years) or PSA (7.8 v 6.1 ng/dL). However, the BMI was significantly higher in the extraperitoneal group (29.8 v 26.5 kg/m(2); P < 0.01). The only complication in the study was a urine leak, which occurred in the transperitoneal group and was managed conservatively.
There were no significant differences in operative parameters in the two groups. Choice of access should be based on patient characteristics as well as surgeon preference. Patients who have had abdominal operations are best suited for the extraperitoneal route. Surgeons should be familiar with both approaches in order to provide patients with the best care.
Available from: Panagiotis Kallidonis
- "The latter can reduce the range of robotic arms motion especially when a 4-arm da Vinci surgical system is used. Still, with proper modifications in trocar positioning extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy can offer a similar clinical outcome as the intraperitoneal approach rendering the selection of route a matter of surgeons preference based on his experience and expert [34, 35]. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (LERP) is considered the standard care treatment option for the management of localized and locally advanced prostatic cancer (PCa) in many institutes worldwide. In this work, the main advantages and disadvantages of LERP approach are reviewed with regard to its outcomes, the complication management, the learning curve, and the extend of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND). It is concluded that LERP demonstrates comparable cancer control, urinary continence, and potency outcomes with the open and the robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, while offering advantages in complication management in comparison to the transperitoneal approach. Learning curve of LERP is considered long and stiff and significantly affects perioperative outcomes and morbidity, cancer control, and functional results. Thus, close mentoring especially in the beginning of the learning curve is advised. Finally, LERP still has a role in the limited or modified PLND offered in intermediate risk PCa patients.
09/2011; 2011(246a,Abs. no.130):150978. DOI:10.1155/2011/150978
Available from: synapse.koreamed.org
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the extraperitoneal robotic radical prostatectomy (ERP), we compared the results of transperitoneal robotic radical prostatectomy (TRP) with those of ERP performed by a single surgeon. Materials and Methods: All operation was performed by a single surgeon, who had the experience of more than 150 transperitoneal cases. Recently, 30 cases were performed through transperitoneal approach, and then extraperitoneal approach was applied to next 30 cases. We compared the clinicopathologic parameters and perioperative outcomes between two groups. Results: There were no significant differences in mean age, body mass index (BMI), preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, prostatectomy Gleason scores and pathologic T stage between two groups, whereas positive surgical margin rate was significantly lower in ERP. There was no significant difference in total operation time, whereas console time, and vesicourethral anastomosis time significantly decreased in ERP. There were no significant differences in postoperative normal diet start day, the duration of hospital stay and bladder catheterization. There were no significant differences in the amount of estimated blood loss and the number of resected lymph nodes. In both groups, there were no inadvertent organ injury during trocar placement and conversion to open surgery, whereas 1 case of lymphocele in ERP was recovered with conservative care. Conclusions: ERP showed similar perioperative outcomes compared to TRP. Considering the potential risk of bowel injury in TRP and reduced peritoneal irritation in ERP, ERP may be alternative in robotic radical prostatectomy.
Korean journal of urology 03/2009; 50(3). DOI:10.4111/kju.2009.50.3.251
Available from: HWR Schreuder
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Over the past decade, there has been an exponential growth of robot-assisted procedures and of publications concerning robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery. From a review of the available literature, it becomes apparent that this technology is safe and allows more complex procedures in many fields of surgery, be it at relatively high costs. Although randomised controlled trials in gynaecology are lacking, available evidence suggests that particularly in gynaecology robotic surgery might not only reduce morbidity but also be cost effective if performed in high-volume centres. Training in robotic surgery and programs for safe and effective implementation are necessary.
BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 02/2009; 116(2):198-213. DOI:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.02038.x · 3.45 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.