Extraperitoneal v intraperitoneal robotic prostatectomy: Analysis of operative outcomes

Rabii Madi, Stephanie Daignault, David P. Wood

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Robotic prostatectomy can be performed either via an extra- or intraperitoneal approach. The extraperitoneal approach has advantages similar to those of an extraperitoneal open radical prostatectomy, but the potential disadvantages of a small working space. We report our experience using both approaches. Methods: From July 2003 to June 2004, 55 patients underwent a robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. During the first 6 months, 21 prostatectomies were performed using an intraperitoneal approach (group 1); 34 were performed using an extraperitoneal approach (group 2) during the next 6 months. Clinicopathologic parameters and perioperative complications were compared in both groups. All patients were categorized as intent-to-treat analysis. Results: Median surgery time was significantly shorter in the extraperitoneal compared with the intraperitoneal approach (3 hours and 34 minutes v 4 hours and 1 minute, respectively, P = 0.017). This was because of the shorter time interval between the skin incision and incision of the endopelvic fascia in the extraperitoneal v the intraperitoneal approach (55 minutes v 74 minutes, respectively, P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in terms of patient age, clinical and pathologic stage, length of hospital stay, and perioperative complications between the two approaches. Conclusion: Extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy offers a similar clinical outcome as the intraperitoneal approach. However, the extraperitoneal approach avoids potential bowel injury or complications related to an intraperitoneal urine leak.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1553-1557
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Endourology
Volume21
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2007

Fingerprint

Robotics
Prostatectomy
Length of Stay
Fascia
Urine
Skin
Wounds and Injuries

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Extraperitoneal v intraperitoneal robotic prostatectomy : Analysis of operative outcomes. / Madi, Rabii; Daignault, Stephanie; Wood, David P.

In: Journal of Endourology, Vol. 21, No. 12, 01.12.2007, p. 1553-1557.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Madi, Rabii ; Daignault, Stephanie ; Wood, David P. / Extraperitoneal v intraperitoneal robotic prostatectomy : Analysis of operative outcomes. In: Journal of Endourology. 2007 ; Vol. 21, No. 12. pp. 1553-1557.
@article{3ec106441b694621acdb721c9dfc8cfd,
title = "Extraperitoneal v intraperitoneal robotic prostatectomy: Analysis of operative outcomes",
abstract = "Background and Purpose: Robotic prostatectomy can be performed either via an extra- or intraperitoneal approach. The extraperitoneal approach has advantages similar to those of an extraperitoneal open radical prostatectomy, but the potential disadvantages of a small working space. We report our experience using both approaches. Methods: From July 2003 to June 2004, 55 patients underwent a robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. During the first 6 months, 21 prostatectomies were performed using an intraperitoneal approach (group 1); 34 were performed using an extraperitoneal approach (group 2) during the next 6 months. Clinicopathologic parameters and perioperative complications were compared in both groups. All patients were categorized as intent-to-treat analysis. Results: Median surgery time was significantly shorter in the extraperitoneal compared with the intraperitoneal approach (3 hours and 34 minutes v 4 hours and 1 minute, respectively, P = 0.017). This was because of the shorter time interval between the skin incision and incision of the endopelvic fascia in the extraperitoneal v the intraperitoneal approach (55 minutes v 74 minutes, respectively, P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in terms of patient age, clinical and pathologic stage, length of hospital stay, and perioperative complications between the two approaches. Conclusion: Extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy offers a similar clinical outcome as the intraperitoneal approach. However, the extraperitoneal approach avoids potential bowel injury or complications related to an intraperitoneal urine leak.",
author = "Rabii Madi and Stephanie Daignault and Wood, {David P.}",
year = "2007",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1089/end.2007.9872",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "1553--1557",
journal = "Journal of Endourology",
issn = "0892-7790",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Extraperitoneal v intraperitoneal robotic prostatectomy

T2 - Analysis of operative outcomes

AU - Madi, Rabii

AU - Daignault, Stephanie

AU - Wood, David P.

PY - 2007/12/1

Y1 - 2007/12/1

N2 - Background and Purpose: Robotic prostatectomy can be performed either via an extra- or intraperitoneal approach. The extraperitoneal approach has advantages similar to those of an extraperitoneal open radical prostatectomy, but the potential disadvantages of a small working space. We report our experience using both approaches. Methods: From July 2003 to June 2004, 55 patients underwent a robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. During the first 6 months, 21 prostatectomies were performed using an intraperitoneal approach (group 1); 34 were performed using an extraperitoneal approach (group 2) during the next 6 months. Clinicopathologic parameters and perioperative complications were compared in both groups. All patients were categorized as intent-to-treat analysis. Results: Median surgery time was significantly shorter in the extraperitoneal compared with the intraperitoneal approach (3 hours and 34 minutes v 4 hours and 1 minute, respectively, P = 0.017). This was because of the shorter time interval between the skin incision and incision of the endopelvic fascia in the extraperitoneal v the intraperitoneal approach (55 minutes v 74 minutes, respectively, P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in terms of patient age, clinical and pathologic stage, length of hospital stay, and perioperative complications between the two approaches. Conclusion: Extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy offers a similar clinical outcome as the intraperitoneal approach. However, the extraperitoneal approach avoids potential bowel injury or complications related to an intraperitoneal urine leak.

AB - Background and Purpose: Robotic prostatectomy can be performed either via an extra- or intraperitoneal approach. The extraperitoneal approach has advantages similar to those of an extraperitoneal open radical prostatectomy, but the potential disadvantages of a small working space. We report our experience using both approaches. Methods: From July 2003 to June 2004, 55 patients underwent a robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. During the first 6 months, 21 prostatectomies were performed using an intraperitoneal approach (group 1); 34 were performed using an extraperitoneal approach (group 2) during the next 6 months. Clinicopathologic parameters and perioperative complications were compared in both groups. All patients were categorized as intent-to-treat analysis. Results: Median surgery time was significantly shorter in the extraperitoneal compared with the intraperitoneal approach (3 hours and 34 minutes v 4 hours and 1 minute, respectively, P = 0.017). This was because of the shorter time interval between the skin incision and incision of the endopelvic fascia in the extraperitoneal v the intraperitoneal approach (55 minutes v 74 minutes, respectively, P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in terms of patient age, clinical and pathologic stage, length of hospital stay, and perioperative complications between the two approaches. Conclusion: Extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy offers a similar clinical outcome as the intraperitoneal approach. However, the extraperitoneal approach avoids potential bowel injury or complications related to an intraperitoneal urine leak.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=38049155964&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=38049155964&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/end.2007.9872

DO - 10.1089/end.2007.9872

M3 - Article

C2 - 18186697

AN - SCOPUS:38049155964

VL - 21

SP - 1553

EP - 1557

JO - Journal of Endourology

JF - Journal of Endourology

SN - 0892-7790

IS - 12

ER -