New steps of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using the extraperitoneal approach: a propensity-score matched comparison between extraperitoneal and transperitoneal approach in Japanese patients

• Published in: BMC urology Vol. 17; no. 1; p. 106
• Main Authors: Kurokawa, Satoshi, Umemoto, Yukihiro, Mizuno, Kentaro, Okada, Atsushi, Nakane, Akihiro, Nishio, Hidenori, Hamamoto, Shuzo, Ando, Ryosuke, Kawai, Noriyasu, Tozawa, Keiichi, Hayashi, Yutaro, Yasui, Takahiro
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 21.11.2017; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Comparative analysis; Extraperitoneal approach; Hernia; Inguinal hernia; Methods; Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; Robotic surgery; Robots; Small physique; Transperitoneal approach; Trendelenburg position; Small physique; Propensity score; Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; Transperitoneal approach; Trendelenburg position; Extraperitoneal approach; Inguinal hernia
• ISSN: 1471-2490; 1471-2490
• DOI: 10.1186/s12894-017-0298-z

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is commonly performed using the transperitoneal (TP) approach with six trocars over an 8-cm distance in the steep Trendelenburg position. In this study, we investigated the feasibility and the benefit of using the extraperitoneal (EP) approach with six trocars over a 4-cm distance in a flat or 5° Trendelenburg position. We also introduced four new steps to the surgical procedure and compared the surgical results and complications between the EP and TP approach using propensity score matching. Between August 2012 and August 2016, 200 consecutive patients without any physical restrictions underwent RARP with the EP approach in a less than 5° Trendelenburg position, and 428 consecutive patients underwent RARP with the TP approach in a steep Trendelenburg position. Four new steps to RARP using the EP approach were developed: 1) arranging six trocars; 2) creating the EP space using laparoscopic forceps; 3) holding the separated prostate in the EP space outside the robotic view; and 4) preventing a postoperative inguinal hernia. Clinicopathological results and complications were compared between the EP and TP approaches using propensity score matching. Propensity scores were calculated for each patient using multivariate logistic regression based on the preoperative covariates. All 200 patients safely underwent RARP using the EP approach. The mean volume of estimated blood loss and duration of indwelling urethral catheter use were significantly lower with the EP approach than the TP approach (139.9 vs 184.9 mL, p = 0.03 and 5.6 vs 7.7 days, p < 0.01, respectively). No significant differences in the positive surgical margin were observed. None of the patients developed an inguinal hernia postoperatively after we introduced this technique. The EP approach to RARP was safely performed regardless of patient physique or contraindications to a steep Trendelenburg position. Our method, which involved using the EP approach to perform RARP, can decrease the amount of perioperative blood loss, the duration of indwelling urethral catheter use, and the incidence of postoperative inguinal hernia development.