MP50-19 MATCHED ANALYSIS OF PERIOPERATIVE OUTCOMES BETWEEN EXTRAPERITONEAL SINGLE PORT AND INTRAPERITONEAL MULTIPORT PROSTATECTOMY: A SINGLE-INSTITUTIONAL EXPERIENCE

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized: Surgical Therapy III (MP50)1 Sep 2021MP50-19 MATCHED ANALYSIS OF PERIOPERATIVE OUTCOMES BETWEEN EXTRAPERITONEAL SINGLE PORT AND INTRAPERITONEAL MULTIPORT PROSTATECTOMY: A SINGLE-INSTITUTIONAL EXPERIENCE Robert Harrison, Michael Stifelman, Shabil Billah, Tina Lulla, Greg Lovallo, and Mutahar Ahmed Robert HarrisonRobert Harrison More articles by this author , Michael StifelmanMichael Stifelman More articles by this author , Shabil BillahShabil Billah More articles by this author , Tina LullaTina Lulla More articles by this author , Greg LovalloGreg Lovallo More articles by this author , and Mutahar AhmedMutahar Ahmed More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002076.19AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to compare perioperative outcomes between single port (SP) and multiport (MP) robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) cases utilizing propensity score matching. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who underwent either MP or SP-RALP at our institution between 1/1/2019 and 10/1/2020. To minimize variation due to different surgeons, only SP-RALP and MP-RALPs performed by the same three surgeons were included. Patients were matched (1:1) on BMI, Gleason group and prostate volume using the optimal matching method. Categorical variables were compared using McNemar’s test while continuous variables were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: In all, 196 patients were included after propensity score matching (98 MP and SP). Table 1 summarizes the cohort’s demographic characteristics. There were no differences between the groups, with the exception of clinical T stage, in which the SP group had a greater percentage of T1c cases (94.9% vs 85.7%, p=0.0390). Outcome data is presented in Table 2. SP was associated with lower median estimated blood loss (50.0 vs. 75.0, p=0.0006), pain scores POD 0 (1.0 vs 2.0, p=0.0004), opioid use at POD 1 (0.0 vs 0.0, p=0.0058) and cumulative opioid use at discharge (2.0 vs 7.0, p=0.0008). MP was found to have shorter median operative time (111.5 vs 147.0, p=0.0000) and higher lymph node yield (6.0 vs 3.5, p=0.0019). CONCLUSIONS: Our early experience with SP-RALP suggest it is safe, reproducible and potentially offers better pain control, as evidenced by lower POD 0 pain scores and opioid use POD 1. The increased OR time was likely due to more experience with MP and may suggest a learning curve when transitioning from MP to SP-RALP. Given increased OR time and a decrease in nodal count future research should address the challenges to surgeons in switching from SP to MP. Source of Funding: none © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e894-e894 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Robert Harrison More articles by this author Michael Stifelman More articles by this author Shabil Billah More articles by this author Tina Lulla More articles by this author Greg Lovallo More articles by this author Mutahar Ahmed More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...