4-Ports endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: preliminary and learning curve results

ABSTRACT Introduction There is a lack of studies in our national scenario regarding the results obtained by laparoscopic radical prostatectomy technique (LRP). Except for a few series, there are no consistent data on oncological, functional, and perioperative results on LRP held in Brazil. As for the LRP technique performed by extraperitoneal access (ELRP), when performed by a single surgeon, the results are even scarcer. Objective To analyze the early perioperative and oncologic results obtained with the ELRP, throughout the technical evolution of a single surgeon. Patients and methods A non-randomized retrospective study was held in a Brazilian hospital of reference. In the 5-year period, 115 patients underwent the ELRP procedure. Patients were divided into two groups, the first 57 cases (Group 1) and the following 58 cases, (Group 2). A comparative analysis between the groups of efficacy results and ELRP safety was carried out. Results The average age of patients was 62.8 year-old and the PSA of 6.9ng/dl. The total surgery time was 135.8 minutes on average, and the urethral-bladder anastomosis was 21.9 min (23.3 min versus 20.7 min). The positive surgical margins (PSM) rate was 17.1%, showing no difference between groups (16.4% versus 17.9%; p=0.835). There was statistical difference between the groups in relation to the anastomosis time, estimated blood loss and the withdrawal time of the urinary catheter. Conclusion The ELRP technique proved to be a safe and effective procedure in the treatment of prostate cancer, with low morbidity.

Análise comparativa dos resultados obtidos com a prostatectomia radical laparoscópica realizada pelos acessos transperitoneal e extraperitoneal durante a curva de aprendizado / Comparative analysis of the results obtained with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy performed by transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approach during the learning curve

Introdução: A curva de aprendizado em prostatectomia radical laparoscópica (PRL) pode variar de 10 a 150 procedimentos. Nesta fase, observa-se o maior número de complicações perioperatórias e conversões, além de resultados oncológicos e funcionais precários. Neste estudo, foram comparadas duas séries iniciais de PRL, realizadas pelos acessos transperitoneal (PRLT) e extraperitoneal (PRLE). Objetivos: Comparar os resultados obtidos com a realização da PRL pelos acessos transperitoneal e extraperitoneal durante a curva de aprendizado, avaliando-se os resultados perioperatórios, oncológicos e funcionais. Pacientes e métodos: Procedeuse a uma análise comparativa retrospectiva entre os dados das primeiras 40 PRLT realizadas no Hospital Getúlio Vargas de Pernambuco (grupo 1) e os dados das primeiras 40 PRLE realizadas no Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (grupo 2). Resultados: Comparando-se as variáveis trans-operatórias dos grupos 1 e 2, observamos diferenças estatísticas na preservação dos feixes vásculonervosos (77,5% vs 90%; p=0,008), tempo cirúrgico total (175,0 min vs 267,6 min;p<0,001) e da perda sanguínea estimada (177,5 ml vs 292,4 ml; p<0,001). Duas complicações (5%) foram observadas no grupo 1 (sangramento e lesão retal) e quatro (10%) ocorreram no grupo 2 (sangramento-2, lesão retal e de bexiga). Conversão para procedimento aberto foi necessária em um caso em cada grupo (2,5%). No período pósoperatório, as principais diferenças estatisticamente significantes entre os grupos 1 e 2 foram observadas nas comparações do tempo de internamento, do tempo de uso de catéter uretral, no uso de opióides, na recorrência bioquímica, na taxa de continência urinária e no tempo médio de seguimento. Nenhuma diferença estatística foi observada na incidência de complicações precoces (17,5% vs 17,5%; p= 1,000), porém três complicações maiores foram observadas no grupo 1, levando ao óbito de um paciente neste grupo...

Introduction: The learning curve in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) can vary from 10 to 150 procedures. This procedure can be done using the transperitoneal or the extraperitoneal approach. So far, there is no consensus about the best way to perform LRP, mainly during the initial phases of the LRP programs. Objectives: To analyze and compare the perioperative, oncological and functional results obtained with both approaches while performing LRP during the learning curve. Patients and Methods: Data of the first 40 transperitoneal LRP (Group 1) performed at Getúlio Vargas Hospital of Recife were compared with the first 40 extraperitoneal LRP (Group 2) performed at Clinics Hospital of State University of São Paulo. Results: On transoperative time, statistically significant difference were observed comparing groups 1 and 2 related to the preservation of the neurovascular bundles (77,5% x 90%; p=0,008), overall surgical time (175 min x 267,6 min; p<0,001) and estimated blood loss (177,5 ml x 292,4 ml; p<0,001). Two complications (5%) were observed in group 1 (bleeding and rectal injury), whereas four (10%) were seen in group 2 (bleeding- 5%, rectal and bladder injury). Open conversion occurred in one case (2,5%) in both groups. On postoperative time, statistical difference comparing the groups 1 and 2 were seen in the in-hospital time, indwelling catheter time, narcotic use, biochemical recurrence and mean follow-up time. No statistical difference was observed related to the incidence of early complications (17,5% vs 17,5%; p= 1,000), but three major complications occurred in group 1, leading to one death in this group...