+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of the prostate: robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy in a matched-pair analysis



Radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of the prostate: robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy in a matched-pair analysis



Journal of Endourology 26(9): 1136-1141



To determine whether previous transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) compromises the surgical outcome and pathologic findings in patient who underwent either radical robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) or open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) after TURP, because TURP is reported to complicate radical prostatectomy and there are conflicting data. From July 2008 to July 2010, 357 patients underwent RALP. Of these, 19 (5.3%) patients had undergone previous TURP. Operative and perioperative data of patients were compared with those of matched controls selected from a database of 616 post-RRP patients. Matching criteria were age, clinical stage, the level of preoperative prostate-specific-antigen, the biopsy Gleason score, the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification score, and prostate volume assessed during transrectal ultrasonography. All RRP and RALP procedures were performed by experienced surgeons. Mean time to prostatectomy was 67.4 months in the RALP group and 53.1 months in the RRP group. Mean operative time was 217 ± 51.9 minutes for RALP and 174 ± 57.7 minutes for RRP (P<0.05). The overall positive surgical margin rate was 15.8% in both groups (pT(2) tumors: 10.5% for RALP and 5.3% for RRP; P=1.0). Mean estimated blood loss was 333 ± 144 mL in RALP patients and 1103 ± 636 mL in RRP patients (P<0.001). The difference between preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin levels was 3.22 ± 0.98 g/dL for RALP and 5.85 ± 1.95 g/dL for RRP (P=0.0002). The RALP and RRP groups also differed in terms of hospital stay (8.58 ± 1.17 vs 11.74 ± 5.22 days; P=0.0037), duration of catheterization (7.95 ± 5.69 vs 11.78 ± 6.97 days; P=0.0016), postoperative complications according to the Clavien classification system (6 vs 15 patients; P=0.0027), and transfusion rate (0% vs 10.5%; P<0.001). RALP offers advantages over open radical prostatectomy after previous surgery. Although both techniques are associated with adequate surgical outcomes, RALP appeared to be preferable in our population of patients with previous prostate surgery.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 055345997

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 22489895

DOI: 10.1089/end.2012.0074


Related references

Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy after Previous Transurethral Resection of the Prostate in Clinical T1a and T1b Prostate Cancer: A Matched-Pair Analysis. Urology Journal 12(3): 2154-2159, 2016

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of prostate using a catheter balloon inflated in prostatic urethra: Oncological and functional outcomes from a matched pair analysis. International Journal of Urology 22(11): 1037-1042, 2016

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the Korean population: a 5-year propensity-score matched comparative analysis versus open radical prostatectomy. International Journal of Urology 21(8): 781-785, 2015

Outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in men with previous transurethral resection of prostate. Bju International 108(9): 1501-1505, 2011

Impact of Variations in Prostatic Apex Shape on Apical Margin Positive Rate After Radical Prostatectomy: Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy vs Open Radical Prostatectomy. Journal of Endourology 32(1): 46-53, 2017

Safety and peri-operative outcomes during learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study of fellowship-trained robotic surgeons versus experienced open radical prostatectomy surgeons incorporating robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Journal of Endourology 24(10): 1665-1669, 2011

A multi-institutional comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy, radical perineal prostatectomy, and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for treatment of localized prostate cancer. Journal of Robotic Surgery 3(3): 175, 2009

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy vs. Open Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Indian Journal of Surgery 77(Suppl 3): 1326-1333, 2016

Effects of Previous Hernia Repair on Extraperitoneal Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Matched-Pair Analysis Study. Journal of Endourology 29(10): 1143-1147, 2016

Comparison of Acute Kidney Injury After Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Versus Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis. Medicine 95(5): E2650, 2016

Telerobotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy vs open retropubic radical prostatectomy A single center matched-pair controlled study. Journal of Urology 167(4 Supplement): 343, 2002

Incidence of inguinal hernia after prostate surgery: open radical retropubic prostatectomy versus open simple prostatectomy versus transurethral resection of the prostate. International Journal of Urology 16(1): 110-113, 2009

Radical prostatectomy with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy under low-dose aspirin does not significantly increase blood loss. Urology 79(3): 591-595, 2012

Surgical site infections after radical prostatectomy: A comparative study between robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and retropubic radical prostatectomy. Turkish Journal of Urology 44(4): 303-310, 2018

Retrospective study of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer after transurethral resection of the prostate compared with retropubic radical prostatectomy at the same institution. Journal of Nippon Medical School 79(6): 416-421, 2013