Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Propensity-Score Matched Analysis Between Extraperitoneal Single Port and Intraperitoneal Multiport Radical Prostatectomy: A Single-Institutional Experience.
Harrison, Robert; Stifelman, Michael; Billah, Mubashir; Zaifman, Jay; Lulla, Tina; Sanchez De La Rosa, Ruth; Koster, Helaine; Lovallo, Gregory; Ahmed, Mutahar.
Afiliación
  • Harrison R; Department of Urology, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ. Electronic address: robertharrison93@gmail.com.
  • Stifelman M; Department of Urology, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ; Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, Hackensack, NJ.
  • Billah M; Department of Urology, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ.
  • Zaifman J; Department of Urology, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ.
  • Lulla T; Department of Urology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC.
  • Sanchez De La Rosa R; Department of Urology, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ.
  • Koster H; Department of Urology, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ.
  • Lovallo G; Department of Urology, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ; Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, Hackensack, NJ.
  • Ahmed M; Department of Urology, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ; Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, Hackensack, NJ.
Urology ; 165: 198-205, 2022 07.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35427674
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

To compare the perioperative results and intermediate-term functional outcomes of single port and multiport robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy by using a propensity-score analysis. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

We evaluated all patients who underwent robotic prostatectomy by 3 urologic surgeons at our institution between January 2019 and October 2020. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected and assessed. Patients were matched based on body mass index, Gleason group, and prostate volume using the optimal matching method.

RESULTS:

Overall, 98 and 165 patients underwent single port and multiport robotic prostatectomy, respectively. Following propensity-score matching, 98 multiport cases were matched 11 to single port cases. The median operative time was lower for multiport (111.5 vs 147.0 minutes, P = .0000). Single port had a lower median estimated blood loss (50.0 vs 75.0 mL, P = .0006), pain score on postoperative day 0 (1.0 vs 2.0, P = .0004), opioid use at postoperative day 1 (0.0 [IQR 0.0-5.0] vs 0.0 MME [IQR 0.0-7.5], P = .0058), cumulative opioid use (2.0 vs 7.0 MME, P = .0008), and lymph node yield (4.0 vs 7.0 nodes, P = .0051). Single port had a greater percentage of men regain full erectile function by 6 months (23.8% vs 4.8%, P = .002).

CONCLUSION:

The single port robotic system is a safe option for localized prostate cancer treatment, offering superior pain control and comparable perioperative results and intermediate-term functional outcomes compared to the multiport robotic approach.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias de la Próstata / Laparoscopía / Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados Límite: Humans / Male Idioma: En Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias de la Próstata / Laparoscopía / Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados Límite: Humans / Male Idioma: En Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article