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: 2.07). 11/2007; 21(10):1199-202. DOI: 10.1089/end.2007.9906
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE) is a well-established and standardized technique for treating patients with localized prostate cancer. Nevertheless, the procedure is continuously being refined with the expansion of anatomical knowledge. The development of a nerve-sparing approach and improvements in currently used equipment are expected to yield better results in cosmesis and convalescence without sacrificing the procedure's established benefits in terms of potency, continence and oncological management. In this study, the technique and its evolution are presented in detail, along with an analysis of its clinical efficacy. We also consult the literature to compare EERPE to transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and we also discuss new technical advancements regarding the use of robotic assistance during EERPE.
    Asian Journal of Andrology 12/2011; 14(2):278-84. · 2.14 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is feasible using either an extraperitoneal (EP) or a transperitoneal (TP) approach. This study reports on the experience of a single hospital using both techniques. From July 2009 to March 2011, 170 patients underwent RARP. EP was chosen in 103 patients and TP in 67. TP was preferred in cases previous mesh hernia repair or if extended lymph-node dissection (LND) was considered necessary. Otherwise, EP was performed; it was preferred in cases of obesity (body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m(2)) or previous intra-abdominal surgery. There were no significant differences in preoperative mean age (64.4 vs 65.6 years), BMI (26.5 vs 26.3 kg/m(2)) or prostate size (51.8 vs 55.8 cm(3)) between EP and TP patients. Owing to preoperative selection criteria, prostate-specific antigen levels and the average Gleason score were significantly lower in EP than in TP patients (p < 0.001). Whereas access time and time for anastomosis did not differ significantly (21 vs 19 min, p = 0.11, and 26 vs 24 min, p = 0.36, respectively), overall surgical time was significantly longer in TP (225 vs 191 min, p < 0.001). Blood loss was equal in both groups (EP 276 vs TP 281 ml, p = 0.88). Complication rates were lower in EP (n = 7, 6.8% vs n = 8, 12%, p = 0.024). Time until first defecation and last analgesic treatment were significantly shorter in EP (p < 0.05). The results of the current evaluation underline the clinical advantages of an extraperitoneal approach for RARP. However, a transperitoneal approach is still considered necessary for extended LND or special clinical conditions. Robotic teams should be trained using both approaches.
    Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology 12/2011; 46(2):117-23. · 1.01 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Objective: To conduct a meta-analysis of studies that compared transperitoneal (TP) and extraperitoneal (EP) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Materials and Methods: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE online databases were searched for studies released prior to June 2012. References were manually reviewed, and two researchers independently extracted the data. To assess the quality of the studies, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network Methodology Checklist for case-control and cohort studies was applied. Results: One randomized controlled trial and five case-control studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Within these studies, 530 patients underwent EP-RARP, and 312 patients underwent TP-RARP. Operating room (OR) time for EP was shorter than for TP (mean difference, -25.551; 95% confidence interval [CI] -41.668 to -9.434; P=.002). For estimated blood loss, there was no significant difference between EP and TP (mean difference, -12.111; 95% CI -44.087 to 19.865; P=.458). There was a statistical difference in length of stay (LOS) between EP and TP patients (mean difference, -0.488; 95% CI -0.964 to -0.012; P=.044). There was no significant difference in margin positivity between EP and TP (odds ratio=1.023; 95% CI 0.656-1.573; P=.918). In complications including grade 2 or more than 2, there was also no difference between EP and TP (odds ratio=0.610; 95% CI 0.341-1.089; P=.094). Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that perioperative parameters, including OR time and LOS, may be more favorable for EP-RARP than for TP-RARP. However, the oncologic outcome of margin positivity did not demonstrate a significant difference between the EP and TP approaches.
    Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques 10/2013; · 1.07 Impact Factor