A Study of 57 Patients with Prostate Cancer to Compare Outcomes of Estimated Blood Loss and Postoperative Pain Between Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy and Standard Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is becoming an increasingly common method for treatment of prostate cancer. This study aimed to compare outcomes of estimated blood loss and postoperative pain, determined by patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), between RARP and standard laparoscopic radical -prostatectomy (LRP). MATERIAL AND METHODS We enrolled 57 patients who had localized prostate cancer (28 patients in RARP, 29 patients in LRP). Primary outcomes were estimated blood loss (EBL) measured by gravimetric method for gauze and visual estimation for suction bottle, and PCA bolus count that the bolus doses were injected at the 1st, the 6th, the 24th, and the 48th hour after the operation. We recorded anesthesia and operation time, pneumoperitoneum duration, vital signs, fluid volume, and remifentanil use. Using the numeric rating scale (NRS), adverse effects were checked at the 1st, the 6th, the 24th, and the 48th hour and patient satisfaction was assessed at the 48th hour after the operation. RESULTS Anesthesia time, operation time, and gas insufflation time were longer (P=0.001, P=0.003, P=0.021), and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) bolus counts at the 1st hour after the operation and volumes of administered crystalloid and remifentanil were higher in the RARP group than in the LRP group (P=0.013, P=0.011, P=0.031). There were no significant differences in EBL. CONCLUSIONS The RARP group required longer anesthetic time and more analgesics during the acute postoperative period compared to the LRP group. Regarding anesthesia, LRP is as good a surgical procedure as RARP until the operation time and the number of ports are reduced.