Extraperitoneal vs Transperitoneal Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy in the Setting of Prior Abdominal or Pelvic...

During robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), the prostate may be approached extraperiteoneally (extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy [eRARP]) or transperitoneally (transperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy [tRARP]). The former avoids the abdominal cavity, which might be of benefit in patients who have had prior abdominal or pelvic surgery (PAPS). Our objective was to compare the outcomes of patients with PAPS undergoing either technique.

A retrospective review of patients treated with RARP from July 1, 2003 to December 31, 2014 with a minimum follow-up of 3 months was undertaken. Of 2927 patients, 620 were identified as having undergone RARP (without concomitant unrelated procedures) and PAPS (excluding patients with prior inguinal hernia repair with mesh or unclear surgical histories) for prostate adenocarcinoma without prior pelvic radiotherapy. Of these, 340 patients underwent eRARP and 280 patients underwent tRARP.

Patients in the eRARP group were younger (61.04 years vs 62.32, p = 0.02), had a higher body mass index (29.65 vs 28.98, p = 0.09), lower American Society of Anesthesiologists scores (p = 0.03), and lower D'Amico risk classification disease (p < 0.0001). The two groups had similar rates of 1, 2, and >2 PAPS. On univariate analysis, the eRARP group had lower operative time (188.96 minutes vs 197.92 minutes, p = 0.003), extensive lysis of adhesions (0.9% vs 14.3%, p < 0.0001), length of hospital stay (LOS) (1.13 days ±0.45 vs 1.33 day ±1.08, p = 0.003), and higher estimated blood loss (210.74 mL vs 190.79 mL, p = 0.06). The eRARP group had a lower rate of gastrointestinal complications (0% vs 3.21%, p = 0.0007), a trend toward lower early post-operative complications (8.53% vs 12.86%, p = 0.08), and lower overall complications (9.41% vs 15%, p = 0.03). In regression analysis with model selection, only LOS was lower in the eRARP group (p = 0.02).

Both methods are safe in patients with prior abdominal surgeries. A lower incidence of gastrointestinal complications and a shorter length of stay were noted in the extraperitoneal cohort.