The Journal of Urology
Volume 175, Issue 2 , Pages 541-546, February 2006

Perioperative Complications of Laparoscopic and Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy

  • Jim C. Hu

      Affiliations

    • Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence: Urologic Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 45 Francis St., Boston, Massachusetts 02115 (telephone: 617-732-6907
  • ,
  • Rebecca A. Nelson

      Affiliations

    • Department of Biostatistics, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California
  • ,
  • Timothy G. Wilson

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California
  • ,
  • Mark H. Kawachi

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California
  • ,
  • S. Adam Ramin

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California
  • ,
  • Clayton Lau

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California
  • ,
  • Laura E. Crocitto

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California

Received 24 March 2005

Purpose

While it remains controversial whether LRP or da Vinci® RAP offers any advantages over radical retropubic prostatectomy, LRP and RAP are being used more frequently. We reviewed our experience with these minimally invasive techniques.

Materials and Methods

We reviewed intraoperative and early postoperative complications of 358 LRPs performed from October 2000 to January 2003 with those of 322 RAPs performed from June 2003 to June 2004. The transperitoneal approach with bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection was performed using each technique. Data acquisition was done independently of the 3 surgeons.

Results

The LRP and RAP groups had similar clinical characteristics in terms of patient race, body mass index, prostate specific antigen, risk group, and pathological tumor grade and stage. Median operative time and estimated blood loss for LRP and RAP were 4.1 and 3.1 hours, and 200 and 250 ml, respectively. No blood transfusions were given intraoperatively, although 8 patients with LRP (2.2%) and 5 with RAP (1.6%) were transfused postoperatively. Of the LRP and RAP patients 21 (5.9%) and 3 (0.3%), respectively, experienced intraoperative complications. Postoperatively 48 patients with LRP (13.4%) and 24 with RAP (6.8%) experienced urine leakage, while 19 with LRP (5.3%) and 9 with RAP (2.8%) had ileus. There were no deaths, myocardial infarctions, pulmonary emboli or cerebrovascular accidents.

Conclusions

In our series surgeon experience derived from LRP may contribute to the lower complication rate and operative time of RAP. Dissemination of surgical technique and management of complications may lead to improved perioperative LRP and RAP morbidity. However, the morbidity of these 2 approaches compares favorably with that of radical retropubic prostatectomy.

Key Words:  prostate , prostatectomy , robotics , laparoscopy , prostatic neoplasms

Abbreviations and Acronyms:  LRP, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy , POD, postoperative day , RAP, robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0022-5347(05)00156-4

doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00156-4

The Journal of Urology
Volume 175, Issue 2 , Pages 541-546, February 2006