Korean J Urol.  2013 Nov;54(11):756-761.

Retropubic Versus Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Study of Postoperative Complications

• Ryu J
• Kwon T
• Kyung YS
• Hong S
• You D
• Jeong IG
• Kim CS

Abstract

PURPOSE
To compare the complications of radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) with those of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) performed by a single surgeon for the treatment of prostate cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The postoperative complications of 341 patients who underwent RRP and 524 patients who underwent RALP for prostate cancer at the Asan Medical Center between July 2007 and August 2012 were retrospectively reviewed and compared. Complications were classified according to the modified Clavien classification system.
RESULTS
RALP was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (mean, 7.9 days vs. 10.1 days, p<0.001) and duration of urethral catheterization (6.2 days vs. 7.5 days, p<0.001) than RRP. Major complications (Clavien grade III-IV) were less common in the RALP group than in the RRP group (3.4% vs. 7.6%, p=0.006). There were no significant differences in medical complications between procedures. Considering surgical complications, urinary retention (7.0% vs. 2.7%, p=0.002) and wound repair (4.1% vs. 0.2%, p<0.001) were more common after RRP than after RALP. Extravasation of contrast medium during cystography was more common in the RRP group than in the RALP group (10.0% vs. 2.1%, p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
RALP is associated with a lower complication rate than RRP.

Keyword

Complications; Prostate; Prostate neoplasms; Prostatectomy

MeSH Terms

Humans
Length of Stay
Postoperative Complications*
Prostate*
Prostatectomy*
Prostatic Neoplasms*
Retrospective Studies
Urinary Catheterization
Urinary Catheters
Urinary Retention

Reference

1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012; 62:10–29.

2. Mottrie A, Ficarra V. Can robot-assisted radical prostatectomy still be considered a new technology pushed by marketers? The IDEAL evaluation. Eur Urol. 2010; 58:525–527.

3. Mottrie A, De Naeyer G, Novara G, Ficarra V. Robotic radical prostatectomy: a critical analysis of the impact on cancer control. Curr Opin Urol. 2011; 21:179–184.

4. Hu JC, Hevelone ND, Ferreira MD, Lipsitz SR, Choueiri TK, Sanda MG, et al. Patterns of care for radical prostatectomy in the United States from 2003 to 2005. J Urol. 2008; 180:1969–1974.

5. Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M. Members of the VIP Team. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int. 2003; 92:205–210.

6. Farnham SB, Webster TM, Herrell SD, Smith JA Jr. Intraoperative blood loss and transfusion requirements for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 2006; 67:360–363.

7. Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology. 2002; 60:864–868.

8. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998; 280:969–974.

9. Owens WD, Felts JA, Spitznagel EL Jr. ASA physical status classifications: a study of consistency of ratings. Anesthesiology. 1978; 49:239–243.

10. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL. ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005; 29:1228–1242.

11. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A, editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th editions. New York: Springer;2010. p. 457–468.

12. Walsh PC. Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique. J Urol. 1998; 160(6 Pt 2):2418–2424.

13. Van Velthoven RF, Ahlering TE, Peltier A, Skarecky DW, Clayman RV. Technique for laparoscopic running urethrovesical anastomosis:the single knot method. Urology. 2003; 61:699–702.

14. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004; 240:205–213.

15. Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A, Graefen M, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2009; 55:1037–1063.

16. Herrmann TR, Rabenalt R, Stolzenburg JU, Liatsikos EN, Imkamp F, Tezval H, et al. Oncological and functional results of open, robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does surgical approach and surgical experience matter? World J Urol. 2007; 25:149–160.

17. Boris RS, Kaul SA, Sarle RC, Stricker HJ. Radical prostatectomy: a single surgeon comparison of retropubic, perineal, and robotic approaches. Can J Urol. 2007; 14:3566–3570.

18. Ahlering TE, Woo D, Eichel L, Lee DI, Edwards R, Skarecky DW. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon's outcomes. Urology. 2004; 63:819–822.

19. Ficarra V, Novara G, Fracalanza S, D'Elia C, Secco S, Iafrate M, et al. A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution. BJU Int. 2009; 104:534–539.

20. Philippou P, Waine E, Rowe E. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open: comparison of the learning curve of a single surgeon. J Endourol. 2012; 26:1002–1008.

21. Kirsh EJ, Worwag EM, Sinner M, Chodak GW. Using outcome data and patient satisfaction surveys to develop policies regarding minimum length of hospitalization after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2000; 56:101–106.

22. Leibman BD, Dillioglugil O, Abbas F, Tanli S, Kattan MW, Scardino PT. Impact of a clinical pathway for radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 1998; 52:94–99.

23. Yamamoto S, Kunishima Y, Kanamaru S, Ito N, Kinoshita H, Kamoto T, et al. A multi-center prospective study for antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent perioperative infections in urologic surgery. Hinyokika Kiyo. 2004; 50:673–683.

24. Arai Y, Egawa S, Tobisu K, Sagiyama K, Sumiyoshi Y, Hashine K, et al. Radical retropubic prostatectomy: time trends, morbidity and mortality in Japan. BJU Int. 2000; 85:287–294.

25. Khemees TA, Novak R, Abaza R. Risk and prevention of acute urinary retention after robotic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2013; 189:1432–1436.

26. Nadu A, Salomon L, Hoznek A, Olsson LE, Saint F, de La Taille A, et al. Early removal of the catheter after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2001; 166:1662–1664.

27. Rabbani F, Yunis LH, Pinochet R, Nogueira L, Vora KC, Eastham JA, et al. Comprehensive standardized report of complications of retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2010; 57:371–386.

28. Carlsson S, Nilsson AE, Schumacher MC, Jonsson MN, Volz DS, Steineck G, et al. Surgery-related complications in 1253 robot-assisted and 485 open retropubic radical prostatectomies at the Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden. Urology. 2010; 75:1092–1097.

29. Krambeck AE, DiMarco DS, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Myers RP, Blute ML, et al. Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques. BJU Int. 2009; 103:448–453.

30. Arai Y, Okada T, Egawa S, Matsumoto K, Tobisu K, Sagiyama K, et al. Radical retropubic prostatectomy: time trends, morbidity and mortality in Japan. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 1999; 2(S3):S4.