MP19-18 ROBOT-ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY (RARP) PERFORMED VIA TRANSPERITONEAL AND EXTRAPERITONEAL APPROACHES: PERIOPERATIVE AND EARLY ONCOLOGIC OUTCOMES FROM A SINGLE SURGEON EXPERIENCE

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized: Surgical Therapy I (MP19)1 Apr 2020MP19-18 ROBOT-ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY (RARP) PERFORMED VIA TRANSPERITONEAL AND EXTRAPERITONEAL APPROACHES: PERIOPERATIVE AND EARLY ONCOLOGIC OUTCOMES FROM A SINGLE SURGEON EXPERIENCE Yu Xia*, Shuai Jiang, and Jianming Guo Yu Xia*Yu Xia* More articles by this author , Shuai JiangShuai Jiang More articles by this author , and Jianming GuoJianming Guo More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000852.018AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative and early oncologic outcomes after transperitoneal (Tp-RARP) and extraperitoneal (Ep-RARP) robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively collected the clinical data of 337 localized prostate cancer cases done by a single surgeon, in which 182 patients were treated by Tp-RARP, and 155 underwent Ep-RARP. Tp-RARP were mostly done from May 2015 to Nov 2017, and Ep-RARP from Dec 2017 to Mar 2019. RESULTS: There was no significant difference for age, body mass index (BMI), preoperative prostate-specific antigen, pathological stage and Gleason score, tumor volume, positive surgical margin, lymph node status, blood loss, bladder catheterization time and complication rates between these two different approaches. Ep-RARP had shorter operative time (102.6 mins for Ep-RARP and 125.6 for Tp-RARP, P<0.001) and faster patient oral diet intake (9.3 vs and 23.6 hours, respectively, P<0.001). The average hospitalization time were 6.6 and 8.5 days after Ep-RARP and Tp-RARP (P<0.05). For patients with prior abdominal surgical history, the operative time difference between Ep and Tp-RARP was even greater (114.5 vs 154.1 mins, P<0.001). For those patients with BMI>32, the Ep-RARP approach also has advantages in shorter operative time and less blood loss. CONCLUSIONS: Ep-RARP is a well-developed technique which has the advantages of shorter operation time and less bowel disturbance rate compared with traditional Tp-RARP, especially in patients with prior abdominal surgical history or obesity. However, further multi-centered randomized controlled trials are need for evaluating its safety and efficacy. Source of Funding: The authors declare no conflict of interest © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e304-e305 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Yu Xia* More articles by this author Shuai Jiang More articles by this author Jianming Guo More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...