Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 7, 2025

Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
Published on: May 19, 2022
Clinical study of 3D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches
Jie Fu1, Wenhao Luo2, Yonghui Ding1
1Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical College Bengbu 233020, Anhui, China.
Objective:
Comparison of the clinical effectiveness and safety of three-dimensional transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (3D TLRP) versus 3D extraperitoneal LRP (3D ELRP) for prostate cancer.
Materials And Methods:
To retrospectively analyze the clinical and regular postoperative follow-up data of patients who underwent 3D LRP performed by the same attending surgeon at the Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical College between 2017 and 2022. A total of 82 patients who met the criteria were included. They were divided into 3D TLRP (n = 39) and 3D ELRP groups (n = 43) according to the surgical approach. The preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were compared.
Results:
There were no statistically significant differences in preoperative characteristics between the two groups. There were also no statistically significant differences between the 3D TLRP and 3D ELRP groups in terms of intraoperative blood transfusion rate (12.82% vs. 2.33%), positive lymph node rate (11.11% vs. 2.38%), positive surgical margin rate (12.82% vs. 6.98%), pathological Gleason score, postoperative clinical stage, perioperative complication rate (10.26% vs. 4.65%), immediate urinary control rate (56.41% vs. 58.14%), 3-month postoperative urinary control rate (76.92% vs. 74.42%), 6-month postoperative urinary control rate (87.18% vs. 83.72%), 6-month postoperative biochemical recurrence rate (7.69% vs. 9.30%), or 6-month postoperative sexual function recovery rate (2.56% vs. 2.33%) (P > 0.05). Compared with the 3D ELRP group, the 3D TLRP group had a longer operative time (232.36 ± 48.52 min vs. 212.07 ± 41.76 min), more estimated blood loss (150.000 [100.0, 200.0] vs. 100.000 [100.0, 125.0]), longer recovery of gastrointestinal function (2.72 ± 0.89 vs. 2.26 ± 0.88), longer duration of drainage tube retention (5.69 ± 1.79 vs. 4.28 ± 2.68), and longer hospitalization time (12.54 ± 4.07 vs. 10.88 ± 2.97), with statistical significance (P < 0.05).
Conclusion:
3D TLRP and 3D ELRP have similar oncologic and functional outcomes. Clinically, physicians can choose a reasonable procedure according to the patient's specific situation and their own surgical experience.
More Related Videos
08:26Clinical Application of Single-Surgeon, Three-Port, Laparoscopic Resection for Colorectal Cancer with Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction
Published on: March 24, 2023
12:45Robot-assisted Total Mesorectal Excision and Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Locally Advanced Middle-low Rectal Cancer
Published on: February 12, 2022