Open radical prostatectomy and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: perioperative comparison of the procedures
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Radical prostatectomy is seen as one of the main methods for the treatment of prostate cancer and has been performed for more than 150 years, being considered the gold standard for the treatment of localized disease. In recent years, laparoscopic and robot-assisted access has received notoriety, with oncological results similar to the open technique associated with the benefits of the minimally invasive approach. Aim: To compare complications and perioperative complications in patients undergoing radical open prostatectomy with the laparoscopic approach. Method: This is a retrospective data analysis performed by reviewing the electronic medical records of patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer at the Regional Hospital of Vale do Paraíba, SP, Brazil (HRVP). Data were collected regarding the procedures performed from January 2014 to December 2018, totaling 35 patients undergoing Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy and 35 patients undergoing Open Radical Prostatectomy. Intra and perioperative data were analyzed, specifically the surgical time, blood transfusion rate, type and time of drainage of the surgical site, and length of hospital stay. The data were subsequently analyzed, and the results of both techniques were compared. Results: When comparing the averages of operative times, we obtained a variation rate of 26.2%. The calculated p-value was 0.00002, demonstrating that the operative time in the open group was significantly shorter. When comparing the mean time taken to remove the drain, we observed a variation rate of 37.8%. The calculated p-value was 0.00004, this time being statistically shorter in the laparoscopy group. The other variables evaluated did not show statistical significance between the groups. Conclusion: The main advantage of an open group is that the procedure can be performed in less time. The main advantage of the laparoscopic group was the possibility of removing the drain before patients were operated on by PRA.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
McDougal WS, Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Partin AW, Peters CA. Campbell-Walsh Urology 11th Edition Review E-Book. Phila-delphia: Elsevier Health Sciences. Cap. 107, 2543.; 2015. 624 p.
INCA. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Statistics [Internet]. INCA - National Cancer Institute. 2018 [cited March 1, 2021]. Available at: https:// www.inca.gov.br/numeros-de-cancer
Eggleston JC, Walsh PC. Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: pathological findings in the first 100 cases. The Journal of urology. 1985; 134(6):1146–8.
RF Rabbit. Predictors of prolonged hospital stay after retropubic radical prostatectomy in a high-volume surgical institution [Thesis (Doctorate in Medicine)]. [São Paulo]: University of São Paulo; 2017.
Reiner WG, Walsh PC. An anatomical approach to the surgical management of the dorsal vein and Santorini’s plexus during radical retropubic surgery. The Journal of urology. 1979; 121(2):198–200.
Rassweiler J, Seemann O, Schulze M, Teber D, Hatzinger M, Frede T. Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a com-parative study at a single institution. The Journal of urology. 2003; 169(5):1689–93.
Secin FP, Savage C, Abbou C, de La Taille A, Salomon L, Rassweiler J, et al. The learning curve for laparoscopic radical prosta-tectomy: an international multicenter study. The Journal of urology. 2010; 184(6):2291–6.
Carvas F, Choi W, Prasad S, Gu X, Lipsitz S, D’Amico A, et al. The effect of minimally invasive and open radical prostatectomy surgeon volume on outcomes. The Journal of Urology. 2010; 183(4S):e285–e285.
Vickers A, Bianco F, Cronin A, Eastham J, Klein E, Kattan M, et al. The learning curve for surgical margins after open radical prostatectomy: implications for margin status as an oncological end point. The Journal of urology. 2010; 183(4):1360–5.
Trinh Q-D, Sammon J, Sun M, Ravi P, Ghani KR, Bianchi M, et al. Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample. European urology. 2012; 61(4):679–85.
Barocas DA, Salem S, Kordan Y, Herrell SD, Chang SS, Clark PE, et al. Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: comparison of short-term biochemical recurrence-free survival. The Journal of urology. 2010; 183(3):990–6.
Tomaszewski J, Davies B, Jackman S, Hrebinko R, Nelson J. Comparative cost-analysis of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prosta-tectomy and open prostatectomy. The Journal of Urology. 2011; 185(4S):e313–e313.
Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. The Journal of urology. 1982; 128(3):492–7.
Saito FJA. Initial learning curve of retropubic radical prostatectomy [Thesis (Doctor of Medicine)]. [São Paulo]: University of São Paulo; 2010.
Young HH. Conservative perineal prostatectomy: the results of two years’ experience and report of seventy-five cases. Annals of surgery. 1905; 41(4):549.
Millin T. Retropubic prostatectomy. SAGE Publications; 1946.
Amorim GLC do C, Cruz GMG da, Veloso DFM, Kartabil JD, Vieira JC, Alves PR. Comparative analysis of radical prostatectomy techniques using perineal or suprapubic approach in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2010; 8(2):200–4.
Salomon L, Levrel O, De La Taille A, Anastasiadis AG, Saint F, Zaki S, et al. Radical prostatectomy by the retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic approach: 12 years of experience in one center. European Urology. 2002; 42(2):104–11.
Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology. 1997; 50(6):854–7.
by Siqueira Júnior TM. Comparative analysis of the results obtained with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy performed by transperitoneal and extraperitoneal accesses during the learning curve [Internet] [text]. University of São Paulo; 2008 [cited March 1, 2021]. Available at: http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/5/5153/tde- 25062009-114950/
Mariano MB, Tefilli MV, Fonseca GN, Goldraich IH. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: 10 years experience. International braz j urol. 2009; 35(5):565–72.
Venkatesh R, Katz MD, Frisella MM, Andriole GL. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Washington university technique. The Journal of Urology. 2008; 179(4S):490–490.
Bollens R, Bossche MV, Roumeguere T, Damoun A, Ekane S, Hoffmann P, et al. Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Radical Prosta-tectomy: Results After 50 Cases. In: Retroperitoneoscopy and Extraperitoneal Laparoscopy in Pediatric and Adult Urology. Springer; 2003. p. 185–91.
Chang CM, Moon D, Gianduzzo TR, Eden CG. The impact of prostate size in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. European urology. 2005; 48(2):285–90.
Rassweiler J, Hruza M, Klein J, Goezen AS, Teber D. The role of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in the era of robotic surgery. European Urology Supplements. 2010; 9(3):379–87.
Vickers AJ, Savage CJ, Hruza M, Tuerk I, Koenig P, Martínez-Piñeiro L, et al. The surgical learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a retrospective cohort study. The lancet oncology. 2009; 10(5):475–80.