Article

A Comparison of Extraperitoneal and Intraperitoneal Approaches for Robotic Prostatectomy

1University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Surgical Innovation (Impact Factor: 1.46). 12/2011; 19(3):268-74. DOI: 10.1177/1553350611429028
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT

Objectives. This study compared oncologic and health-related quality-of-life outcomes among patients undergoing intraperitoneal or extraperitoneal robotic prostatectomy. Methods. Of 215 patients undergoing robotic prostatectomy, the approach was intraperitoneal in 48 and extraperitoneal in 167. Cancer control was evaluated using margin status. Recovery after surgery and functional health was assessed using the Convalescence and Recovery Evaluation and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaires, respectively. Results. Positive surgical margin rates were similar between approaches (14% extraperitoneal, 10% intraperitoneal; P = .63). Functional outcomes were slightly improved for those with the extraperitoneal approach (ie, higher urinary irritation/obstruction scores at 3 months). The extraperitoneal group demonstrated higher activity (91.8 vs 83.3, P = .03) and cognitive scores (94.9 vs 91.7, P = .04) at 6 weeks as well as higher gastrointestinal scores at 2 weeks (94.2 vs 90.8, P = .05). Conclusions. These data support efforts to broaden the adoption of the extraperitoneal approach for robotic prostatectomy.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: J. Stuart Wolf, Jr.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide 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.
    No preview · Article · Oct 2013 · Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare operative, pathological, and functional results of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy carried out by a single surgeon. After having experience with 32 transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomies, 317 extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomies, 30 transperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies and 10 extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies, 120 patients with prostate cancer were enrolled in this prospective randomized study and underwent either transperitoneal or extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The main outcome parameters between the two study groups were compared. No significant difference was found for age, body mass index, preoperative prostate-specific antigen, clinical and pathological stage, Gleason score on biopsy and prostatectomy specimen, tumor volume, positive surgical margin, and lymph node status. Transperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy had shorter trocar insertion time (16.0 vs 25.9 min for transperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, P < 0.001), whereas extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy had shorter console time (101.5 vs 118.3 min, respectively, P < 0.001). Total operation time and total anesthesia time were found to be shorter in extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, without statistical significance (200.9 vs 193.2 min; 221.8 vs 213.3 min, respectively). Estimated blood loss was found to be lower for extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (P = 0.001). Catheterization and hospitalization times were observed to be shorter in extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (7.3 vs 5.8 days and 3.1 vs 2.3 days for transperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, respectively, P < 0.05). The time to oral diet was significantly shorter in extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (32.3 vs 20.1 h, P = 0.031). Functional outcomes (continence and erection) and complication rates were similar in both groups. Extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy seems to be a good alternative to transperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with similar operative, pathological and functional results. As the surgical field remains away from the bowel, postoperative return to normal diet and early discharge can be favored. © 2015 The Japanese Urological Association.
    No preview · Article · Jul 2015 · International Journal of Urology