• Ida Johnson, Fredrik Ottosson, Lien My Diep, Rolf Eigil Berg, Jon-Roar Hoff, Nicolai Wessel, Lars Magne Eri, and Viktor Berge.
• a Department of Urology , Sørlandet Hospital , Arendal , Norway.
• Scand J Urol. 2018 Apr 1; 52 (2): 116-121.

ObjectivesTo compare oncological outcomes and complication rates based on the Clavien classification between laparoscopic radical prostatectomies (LRP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies (RALP).Material And MethodsIn a prospective quality registry clinical data were consecutively entered for 544 LRP and 1081 RALP patients operated from 2003 to the end of 2012. Complications within 90 days postoperatively were assessed according to the Clavien classification and compared between LRP and RALP patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses of logistic regression were used to fit oncological outcomes and complication data.ResultsThe mean operation time was 213 and 135 minutes in LRP and RALP patients, respectively. Pathological T3a stage (pT3a) in the RALP group was more frequent than in the LRP group, 32.4% versus 17.8%, respectively. For pT2 tumours, positive surgical margins (PSM) rate for LRP and RALP, was 20.3% vs 10.6%, respectively (p < .001). In the LRP group 74 patients (13.6%) reported 104 and in the RALP group 141 patients (13.0%) reported 177 complications (p = .75). Seventeen (3.1%) LRP patients and 15 (1.4%) RALP patients had Clavien grade IIIb complications (p = .017). Surgical reintervention was necessary in 14 patients (2.6%) and 17 patients (1.6%) in the LRP and RALP group, respectively (p = .04).ConclusionSwitching from LRP to RALP resulted in a much shorter operation time without compromising oncological outcome. There was no statistically significant difference in overall complication-rates between LRP and RALP. However, LRP patients had more serious complications and increased need for surgical reintervention compared to RALP patients.

24 keywords...

hide…