An Open Radical Prostatectomy Approach that mimics the Technique of Robot-assisted Prostatectomy: A Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes.

orkunt özkaptan, Muhsin Balaban, Cuneyd Sevinc, Tahir Karadeniz

Abstract


71

Purpose: To report on an ascending radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) technique and determine whether this technique has better perioperative, oncological and functional outcomes than the standard RRP technique applied in our clinic

Material and Methods:

The perioperative and functional outcomes of the 246 patients that underwent standard RRP (N = 150) or modified RRP (N = 96) were evaluated, retrospectively. In the modified RRP technique the dorsal vasculare complex (DVC) was controlled at first. Thereafter, the bladder neck was incised at the prostate-vesical junction. After seminal vesicles and vasa were exposed, posterior dissection was continued until to the apex. Finally, the urethra was divided. To assess the differences between the two groups the independent sample T-test and chi-square test were used.

Results:

The mean volume of  estimated blood loss (EBL) was significantly longer in the standard RRP group than in the modified RRP group (610 vs. 210 ml, respectively; P= .001). The mean operative time (OT) was significantly less in the modified RRP group (177 vs. 134 min, respectively; P = .003), as were the transfusion rate TR (P = .041). With regard to the rate of postoperative complications, a statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups (P = .014). Continence rates after 3 and 12 months postoperatively were 98.95% and 98.95 % in the modified RRP group, and 97.33% and 98.66% in the standard RRP group, respectively ( P = .83).

Conclusion:

We observed that the EBL, TR and OT were significantly lower when we applied the modified RRP technique to patients. This modified technique might be applicable for institutions as an alternative procedure for the standard RRP technique.


Full Text:

PDF/4739

18

References


Begg CB, Riedel ER, Bach PB, Kattan MW, Schrag D, Warren JL, Scardino PT. Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1138–44.

Binder J, Kramer W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2001;87:408–410 .

Menon M, Shrivastava A, Tewari, Sarle R, Hemal A, Peabody JO, et al. Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy:establishment of a structured program. J Urol. 2002 Sep;168(3):945-9.

Wallerstedt A, Tyritzis SI, Thorsteinsdottir T, Carlsson S, Stranne J, Gustafsson O, et al. Short-term results after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2015;67:660–70.

Gardiner RA, Coughlin GD, Yaxley JW, Dunglison NT, Occhipinti S, Younie SJ, et al. A progress report on a prospective randomised trial of open and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2014;65:512–5.

Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Barry MJ, D'Amico AV, Weinberg AC, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA 2009;302:1557–64.

Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Costello A, Eastham JA, et al. Systematic review and metaanalysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robotassisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:431–52.

Gandaglia G, Sammon JD, Chang SL, Choueiri TK, Hu JC, Karakiewicz PI, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy in the postdissemination era. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:1419–26.

Trinh QD, Sammon J, Sun M, Ravi P, Ghani KR, Bianchi M, et al. Perioperative outcomes of robotassisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample. Eur Urol 2012;61:679–85.

VR Patel A, KK. Shah, RK. Thaly, H Lavery. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: The Ohio State University technique. J Robotic Surg 2007; 1:51–59.

Özkaptan O, Karadeniz T, Guzelburc V, Yilmaz K, Yilanoğlu O, Sahin S.. The effects of pelvic dimensions on radical retropubic prostatectomy. Can J Urol. 2013 Jun;20(3):6761-7.

Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications. A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240: 205–13.

Mouraviev V, Nosnik I, Sun L, Robertson CN, Walther P, Albala D, et al. Financial comparative analysis of minimally invasive surgery to open surgery for localized prostate cancer: a singleinstitution experience. Urology. 2007;69(2):311-314.

Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology. 2002;60(5):864-868.

Nelson B, Kaufman M, Broughton G, Cookson MS, Chang SS, Herrell SD, et al. Comparison of length of hospital stay between radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2007;177(3):929-931.

Menon M, Bhandari M, Gupta N, Lane Z, Peabody JO, Rogers CG, et al: Biochemical recurrence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5-year follow-up. Eur Urol 58:838-846, 2010.

Lowrance WT, Eastham JA, Yee DS, Laudone VP, Denton B, Scardino PT, et al: Costs of medical care after open or minimally invasive prostate cancer surgery: A population-based analysis. Cancer 118:3079-3086, 2012.

Rabbani F, Yunis LH, Pinochet R, Nogueira L, Vora KC, Eastham JA, et al. Comprehensive standardized report of complications of retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2010 Mar;57(3):371-86.

Graefen M. The modified Clavien system: a plea for a standardized reporting system for surgical complications. Eur Urol. 2010 Mar; 57(3):387-9.

Coelho RF, Rocco B, Patel MB, Orvieto MA, Chauhan S, Ficarra V, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a critical review of outcomes reported by high-volume centers. J Endourol. 2010 Dec;24(12):2003-15.

Haglind E, Carlsson S, Stranne J, Wallerstedt A, Wilderäng U, Thorsteinsdottir T, et al. Urinary Incontinence and Erectile Dysfunction After Robotic Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy: A Prospective, Controlled, Nonrandomised Trial. LAPPRO steering committee. Eur Urol. 2015 Aug;68(2):216-25.

Löppenberg B, Noldus J, Holz A, Palisaar RJ. Reporting complications after open radical retropubic prostatectomy using the Martin criteria. J Urol. 2010 Sep;184(3):944-8.

Lowrance WT, Elkin EB, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Re: comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2010;57:538.

Hu JC, Gandaglia G, Karakiewicz PI, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy cancer control. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 666–72.

Suardi N, DellOglio P, Gallina A, Gandaglia G, Buffi N, Moschini M, et al. Evaluation of positive surgical margins in patients undergoing robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy according to preoperative risk groups. Urol Oncol 2016; 34: 57.

Patel RF and Lepor H: Removal of urinary catheter on postoperative day 3 or 4 after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2003; 61: 156.,

Harpster LE, Brien J. Initial results using a running vesicourethral anastomosis following open radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2007 Jan;177(1):118-22.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22037/uj.v0i0.4739


Creative Commons License 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License