Robotic assisted simple prostatectomy mitigates perioperative morbidity compared to open simple prostatectomy - a single institution report.
Benign prostatic hyperplasia
Lower urinary tract symptoms
Open simple prostatectomy
Robotic assisted simple prostatectomy
Journal
BMC urology
ISSN: 1471-2490
Titre abrégé: BMC Urol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968571
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Oct 2024
10 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
09
02
2024
accepted:
01
10
2024
medline:
10
10
2024
pubmed:
10
10
2024
entrez:
9
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
According to the guidelines of the European Association of Urology, open simple prostatectomy should be offered to men with a prostate size exceeding 80 mL suffering from moderate to severe LUTS in the absence of a transurethral enucleation technique. However, open simple prostatectomy is associated with complications such as bleeding, blood transfusions and increased length of stay compared to minimally invasive procedures. The aim of the study was to compare perioperative data from the first cases of robotic assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) to that of patients subjected to open simple prostatectomy (OSP) at our department. The patients were identified by a search for the respective procedure codes. In the OSP group enucleation of the adenoma was performed through the prostatic capsule (Millin procedure), while access to the adenoma was gained through the bladder in the RASP group. Complications were scored according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system. 27 patients who underwent OSP were retrospectively identified and compared to the first 26 patients who were subjected to RASP. The groups were similar with respect to age, body mass index and ASA score. Operative time was significantly shorter in the OSP group compared to the RASP group. Bleeding volume, drop in postoperative hemoglobin and the number of blood transfusions were all significantly higher in the OSP group compared to the RASP group. Average length of stay was 5.5 (2-18) days in the OSP group compared to 1.6 (1-5) days in the RASP group (p < 0.001). The number of postoperative complications, Clavien-Dindo ≥ 2, were significantly higher in the OSP group (11) compared to the RASP group (none, p < 0.001). The introduction of robotic assisted simple prostatectomy reduced perioperative morbidity at our department.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
According to the guidelines of the European Association of Urology, open simple prostatectomy should be offered to men with a prostate size exceeding 80 mL suffering from moderate to severe LUTS in the absence of a transurethral enucleation technique. However, open simple prostatectomy is associated with complications such as bleeding, blood transfusions and increased length of stay compared to minimally invasive procedures. The aim of the study was to compare perioperative data from the first cases of robotic assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) to that of patients subjected to open simple prostatectomy (OSP) at our department.
METHODS
METHODS
The patients were identified by a search for the respective procedure codes. In the OSP group enucleation of the adenoma was performed through the prostatic capsule (Millin procedure), while access to the adenoma was gained through the bladder in the RASP group. Complications were scored according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system.
RESULTS
RESULTS
27 patients who underwent OSP were retrospectively identified and compared to the first 26 patients who were subjected to RASP. The groups were similar with respect to age, body mass index and ASA score. Operative time was significantly shorter in the OSP group compared to the RASP group. Bleeding volume, drop in postoperative hemoglobin and the number of blood transfusions were all significantly higher in the OSP group compared to the RASP group. Average length of stay was 5.5 (2-18) days in the OSP group compared to 1.6 (1-5) days in the RASP group (p < 0.001). The number of postoperative complications, Clavien-Dindo ≥ 2, were significantly higher in the OSP group (11) compared to the RASP group (none, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The introduction of robotic assisted simple prostatectomy reduced perioperative morbidity at our department.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39385136
doi: 10.1186/s12894-024-01615-4
pii: 10.1186/s12894-024-01615-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
221Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Management of Non-neurogenic Male LUTS. http://uroweb.org/guidelines/compilations-of-all-guidelines/ . 2022.
Varkarakis I, Kyriakakis Z, Delis A, Protogerou V, Deliveliotis C. Long-term results of open transvesical prostatectomy from a contemporary series of patients. Urol Aug. 2004;64(2):306–10.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.03.033
Chen S, Zhu L, Cai J, et al. Plasmakinetic enucleation of the prostate compared with open prostatectomy for prostates larger than 100 grams: a randomized noninferiority controlled trial with long-term results at 6 years. Eur Urol Aug. 2014;66(2):284–91.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.010
Sotelo R, Clavijo R, Carmona O, et al. Robotic simple prostatectomy. J Urol Feb. 2008;179(2):513–5.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.09.065
Li J, Cao D, Peng L, et al. Comparison between minimally invasive simple prostatectomy and open simple prostatectomy for large prostates: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of comparative trials. J Endourol Sep. 2019;33(9):767–76.
doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0306
Scarcella S, Castellani D, Gauhar V, et al. Robotic-assisted versus open simple prostatectomy: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Investig Clin Urol Nov. 2021;62(6):631–40.
doi: 10.4111/icu.20210297
Pandolfo SD, Del Giudice F, Chung BI, et al. Robotic assisted simple prostatectomy versus other treatment modalities for large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 6500 cases. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Sep. 2023;26(3):495–510.
doi: 10.1038/s41391-022-00616-4
Millin T. Retropubic prostatectomy; a new extravesical technique; report of 20 cases. Lancet Dec. 1945;1(6380):693–6.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(45)91030-0
Mitropoulos D, Artibani W, Biyani CS, Bjerggaard Jensen J, Roupret M, Truss M. Validation of the Clavien-Dindo Grading System in Urology by the European Association of Urology Guidelines Ad Hoc Panel. Eur Urol Focus Jul. 2018;4(4):608–13.
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.02.014
Kuntz RM, Lehrich K, Ahyai SA. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus open prostatectomy for prostates greater than 100 grams: 5-year follow-up results of a randomised clinical trial. Eur Urol Jan. 2008;53(1):160–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.08.036
Naspro R, Suardi N, Salonia A, et al. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus open prostatectomy for prostates > 70 g: 24-month follow-up. Eur Urol Sep. 2006;50(3):563–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.04.003
Skolarikos A, Papachristou C, Athanasiadis G, Chalikopoulos D, Deliveliotis C, Alivizatos G. Eighteen-month results of a randomized prospective study comparing transurethral photoselective vaporization with transvesical open enucleation for prostatic adenomas greater than 80 cc. J Endourol Oct. 2008;22(10):2333–40.
doi: 10.1089/end.2008.9709
Gratzke C, Schlenker B, Seitz M, et al. Complications and early postoperative outcome after open prostatectomy in patients with benign prostatic enlargement: results of a prospective multicenter study. J Urol Apr. 2007;177(4):1419–22.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.11.062
Li M, Qiu J, Hou Q, et al. Endoscopic enucleation versus open prostatectomy for treating large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(3):e0121265.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121265
Golomb D, Berto FG, Bjazevic J, et al. Simple prostatectomy using the open and robotic approaches for lower urinary tract symptoms: a retrospective, case-control series. Can Urol Assoc J Jan. 2022;16(1):E39–43.
Shah AA, Gahan JC, Sorokin I. Comparison of Robot-assisted Versus Open simple prostatectomy for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Curr Urol Rep Jul. 2018;12(9):71.
doi: 10.1007/s11934-018-0820-1
Sorokin I, Sundaram V, Singla N, et al. Robot-assisted Versus Open simple prostatectomy for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in large glands: a propensity score-matched comparison of Perioperative and short-term outcomes. J Endourol Nov. 2017;31(11):1164–9.
doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0489
Mourmouris P, Keskin SM, Skolarikos A, et al. A prospective comparative analysis of robot-assisted vs open simple prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJU Int Feb. 2019;123(2):313–7.
doi: 10.1111/bju.14531
Johnson B, Sorokin I, Singla N, Roehrborn C, Gahan JC. Determining the learning curve for Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy in surgeons familiar with robotic surgery. J Endourol Sep. 2018;12(9):865–70.
doi: 10.1089/end.2018.0377