ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
Year : 2019 | Volume
: 30
| Issue : 3 | Page : 124-130 |
|
Can robot-assisted radical prostatectomy improve functional outcomes compared to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy? Experience at a laparoscopic center
Cheng-Hsin Lu1, Chun-Hsien Wu2, Yu-Chi Chen3, Chung-Hsien Chen4, Richard Chen-Yu Wu1, Yeh-Hsi Lee4, Ching-Yu Huang1, Tsan-Jung Yu2, Victor C Lin2
1 Department of Urology, E-Da Hospital, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan 2 Department of Urology, E-Da Hospital; School of Medicine for International Students, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan 3 Department of Urology, E-Da Hospital; Department of Health and Beauty, Shu-Zen College of Medicine and Management, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan 4 Department of Urology, E-Da Hospital; Department of Chemical Engineering, Institute of Biotechnology, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Correspondence Address:
Victor C Lin No. 1, Yida Road, Jiaosu, Yanchao, Kaohsiung 82445 Taiwan
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
DOI: 10.4103/UROS.UROS_134_18

|
|
Purpose: This study compared the perioperative parameters and early functional outcomes between robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) at a urological laparoscopic center. Materials and Methods: Between January 2006 and May 2017, 242 patients underwent endoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP for 208 cases; RARP for 34 cases). Patients who were followed up > 12 months were included in the study. Propensity score-matched groups of patients who underwent LRP or RARP were created based on age, body mass index, history of diabetes mellitus, history of smoking, preoperative prostate-specific antigen level, clinical T status, risk group classification, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and whether the nerve-sparing technique was performed. Results: There were no significant differences in the blood transfusion rate, surgical margin status, length of stay, catheterization time, or days to oral intake for both procedures. Although RARP is more time-consuming, it provided significant benefits regarding the yield of dissected lymph nodes (19 vs. 9; P < 0.001) and early urinary continence recovery (i.e., continence rates after 1 month [56.2% vs. 21.9%; P = 0.006] and after 3 months [84.4% vs. 53.1%; P = 0.001]). No difference was observed for early complications, although the RARP group had more late complications. Conclusion: Our experience indicated that RARP could provide less blood loss and faster recovery of urinary continence and yield more dissected lymph nodes compared to LRP. Further studies are needed to determine whether the long-term clinical, functional, and oncological outcomes are superior.
|
|
|
|
[FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|