ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Purpose: This study compared the suprapubic (SP) versus retropubic (RP) prostatectomy for the treatment of large prostates and evaluated perioperative surgical morbidity and improvement of urinary symptoms. Materials and Methods: In this single centre, prospective, randomised study, 65 consecutive patients with LUTS and surgical indication with prostate volume greater than 75g underwent open prostatectomy to compare the RP (32 patients) versus SP (33 patients) technique. Results: The SP group exhibited a higher incidence of complications (p=0.002). Regarding voiding pattern analysis (IPSS and flowmetry), both were significantly effective compared to pre-treatment baseline. The RP group parameters were significantly better, with higher peak urinary flow (SP: 16.77 versus RP: 23.03mL/s, p=0.008) and a trend of lower IPSS score (SP: 6.67 versus RP 4.14, p=0.06). In a subgroup evaluation of patients with prostate volumes larger than 100g, blood loss was lower in those undergoing SP prostatectomy (p=0.003). Patients with prostates smaller than 100g in the SP group exhibited a higher incidence of low grade late complications (p=0.004). Conclusions: The SP technique was related to a higher incidence of minor complications in the late postoperative period. High volume prostates were associated with increased bleeding when the RP technique was utilized. The RP prostatectomy was associated with higher peak urinary flow and a trend of a lower IPSS Score.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Prostatectomy/methods , Prostatic Hyperplasia/surgery , Learning Curve , Postoperative Complications , Prostate/surgery , Prostatectomy/education , Prostatectomy/adverse effects , Time Factors , Prospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Statistics, Nonparametric , Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms/surgery , Operative Time , Intraoperative Complications , Medical Staff, Hospital/education , Middle AgedABSTRACT
Considering the Health Care System in Brazil, a developing country, and public healthcare policies, robotic surgery is a reality to very few citizens. Therefore, robotic assisted radical prostatectomy is far removed from the daily practice of the vast majority of Brazilian urologists. Scientific evidence of the superiority of robotic assisted radical prostatectomy does not presently justify public investments for widespread development of robotic centers. Maybe over time and with reductions in costs, robotic technology will become a more established practice, as observed in other countries, and more feasible for the Brazilian urological community.
Levando em conta o Sistema de Saúde do Brasil, um país em desenvolvimento, e as políticas de saúde pública, a cirurgia robótica é uma realidade disponível a poucos cidadãos. Assim, a prostatectomia radical robô-assistida está longe da prática diária da grande maioria dos urologistas brasileiros. As evidências científicas da superioridade da prostatectomia radical assistida por robôs não justificam, no momento, os investimentos públicos para o desenvolvimento disseminado de centros de robótica. Talvez mais tarde e com redução nos custos, a tecnologia da robótica torne-se uma prática mais estabelecida, como já observado em outros países, e fique, assim, mais viável para a comunidade urológica do Brasil.