Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy

Is one better than the other?

Fatih Atug, Erik P Castle, Michael Woods, Sudesh K. Srivastav, Raju Thomas, Rodney Davis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

53 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the differences, if any, in outcomes with transperitoneal (TP) versus extraperitoneal (EP) approaches during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Methods: We reviewed the data from 40 consecutive patients who underwent EP-RARP at our institution by the same surgical team. The outcomes were compared with those of 40 consecutive patients who underwent TP-RARP performed by the same team in a nonrandomized manner. The operative and postoperative parameters (total operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, robotic console time, and robotic anastomosis time), as well as complications and surgical margin status, were analyzed and compared. Results: The patient demographics were similar in both groups. Nerve sparing was performed in 35 and 36 patients in the TP and EP groups, respectively. Pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed in 14 and 12 patients in the TP and EP groups, respectively. The operative time was slightly longer with the TP approach at 236 minutes (range 111 to 360) compared with 229 minutes (range143 to 382) in the EP group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.5722) between the two groups. Also, the differences in robot console time, anastomosis time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay were not statistically significant between the two groups at the 5% significance level. The complication and positive surgical margin rates were similar in both groups. Conclusions: As expected, the EP approach is feasible with RARP. Our data suggest that the EP approach is comparable to the TP approach and produces favorable outcomes. Surgeon preference will likely play a significant role in the approach used.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1077-1081
Number of pages5
JournalUrology
Volume68
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Robotics
Prostatectomy
Operative Time
Length of Stay
Lymph Node Excision
Demography

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy : Is one better than the other? / Atug, Fatih; Castle, Erik P; Woods, Michael; Srivastav, Sudesh K.; Thomas, Raju; Davis, Rodney.

In: Urology, Vol. 68, No. 5, 12.2006, p. 1077-1081.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Atug, Fatih ; Castle, Erik P ; Woods, Michael ; Srivastav, Sudesh K. ; Thomas, Raju ; Davis, Rodney. / Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy : Is one better than the other?. In: Urology. 2006 ; Vol. 68, No. 5. pp. 1077-1081.
@article{fa19d5ca2f964cd093c8f4be8d150f7b,
title = "Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: Is one better than the other?",
abstract = "Objectives: To evaluate the differences, if any, in outcomes with transperitoneal (TP) versus extraperitoneal (EP) approaches during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Methods: We reviewed the data from 40 consecutive patients who underwent EP-RARP at our institution by the same surgical team. The outcomes were compared with those of 40 consecutive patients who underwent TP-RARP performed by the same team in a nonrandomized manner. The operative and postoperative parameters (total operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, robotic console time, and robotic anastomosis time), as well as complications and surgical margin status, were analyzed and compared. Results: The patient demographics were similar in both groups. Nerve sparing was performed in 35 and 36 patients in the TP and EP groups, respectively. Pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed in 14 and 12 patients in the TP and EP groups, respectively. The operative time was slightly longer with the TP approach at 236 minutes (range 111 to 360) compared with 229 minutes (range143 to 382) in the EP group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.5722) between the two groups. Also, the differences in robot console time, anastomosis time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay were not statistically significant between the two groups at the 5{\%} significance level. The complication and positive surgical margin rates were similar in both groups. Conclusions: As expected, the EP approach is feasible with RARP. Our data suggest that the EP approach is comparable to the TP approach and produces favorable outcomes. Surgeon preference will likely play a significant role in the approach used.",
author = "Fatih Atug and Castle, {Erik P} and Michael Woods and Srivastav, {Sudesh K.} and Raju Thomas and Rodney Davis",
year = "2006",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1016/j.urology.2006.07.008",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "68",
pages = "1077--1081",
journal = "Urology",
issn = "0090-4295",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy

T2 - Is one better than the other?

AU - Atug, Fatih

AU - Castle, Erik P

AU - Woods, Michael

AU - Srivastav, Sudesh K.

AU - Thomas, Raju

AU - Davis, Rodney

PY - 2006/12

Y1 - 2006/12

N2 - Objectives: To evaluate the differences, if any, in outcomes with transperitoneal (TP) versus extraperitoneal (EP) approaches during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Methods: We reviewed the data from 40 consecutive patients who underwent EP-RARP at our institution by the same surgical team. The outcomes were compared with those of 40 consecutive patients who underwent TP-RARP performed by the same team in a nonrandomized manner. The operative and postoperative parameters (total operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, robotic console time, and robotic anastomosis time), as well as complications and surgical margin status, were analyzed and compared. Results: The patient demographics were similar in both groups. Nerve sparing was performed in 35 and 36 patients in the TP and EP groups, respectively. Pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed in 14 and 12 patients in the TP and EP groups, respectively. The operative time was slightly longer with the TP approach at 236 minutes (range 111 to 360) compared with 229 minutes (range143 to 382) in the EP group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.5722) between the two groups. Also, the differences in robot console time, anastomosis time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay were not statistically significant between the two groups at the 5% significance level. The complication and positive surgical margin rates were similar in both groups. Conclusions: As expected, the EP approach is feasible with RARP. Our data suggest that the EP approach is comparable to the TP approach and produces favorable outcomes. Surgeon preference will likely play a significant role in the approach used.

AB - Objectives: To evaluate the differences, if any, in outcomes with transperitoneal (TP) versus extraperitoneal (EP) approaches during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Methods: We reviewed the data from 40 consecutive patients who underwent EP-RARP at our institution by the same surgical team. The outcomes were compared with those of 40 consecutive patients who underwent TP-RARP performed by the same team in a nonrandomized manner. The operative and postoperative parameters (total operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, robotic console time, and robotic anastomosis time), as well as complications and surgical margin status, were analyzed and compared. Results: The patient demographics were similar in both groups. Nerve sparing was performed in 35 and 36 patients in the TP and EP groups, respectively. Pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed in 14 and 12 patients in the TP and EP groups, respectively. The operative time was slightly longer with the TP approach at 236 minutes (range 111 to 360) compared with 229 minutes (range143 to 382) in the EP group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.5722) between the two groups. Also, the differences in robot console time, anastomosis time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay were not statistically significant between the two groups at the 5% significance level. The complication and positive surgical margin rates were similar in both groups. Conclusions: As expected, the EP approach is feasible with RARP. Our data suggest that the EP approach is comparable to the TP approach and produces favorable outcomes. Surgeon preference will likely play a significant role in the approach used.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33750989334&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33750989334&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.urology.2006.07.008

DO - 10.1016/j.urology.2006.07.008

M3 - Article

VL - 68

SP - 1077

EP - 1081

JO - Urology

JF - Urology

SN - 0090-4295

IS - 5

ER -