Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: is one better than the other?
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 2
Related Questions
- What is the benefit of having a robotic-assisted prostatectomy (removal of the prostate) surgery versus a conventional prostatectomy surgery?
- Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: is one better than the other?
- Does the extraperitoneal laparoscopic approach improve the outcome of radical prostatectomy?
