Laparoendoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP): stepwise transition from multi-site to single-site with the aid of the transurethral port
Yunfei Wei,Jingyuan Tang,Lin Yuan,Jian Su,Yang Zhang,Zhonglei Deng,Chen Zhu,Luming Shen,Ninghong Wang,Guojiang Xu,Yong Yang,Qingyi Zhu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-020-02638-0
Abstract:Purpose: To describe our initial experience with laparoendoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and a stepwise transition towards transurethral assisted laparoendoscopic single-site RP (TU-LESS RP). Patients and methods: From Jan. 2007 to Dec. 2016, 195 patients underwent RP, of which 89 patients were performed by LRP (Group A), 106 by TU-LESS RP (Group B). The peri-operative data were collected and analyzed. All data referring to patient demographics, surgery, pathology, and peri-operative outcomes were recorded. The cosmetic result was investigated by the Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire (PSAQ). Analysis of variance or Chi squared test were adopted to analyze the data. Results: 195 procedures were completed successfully. The operation time (109.6 ± 31.9 vs. 151.5 ± 87.3, P = 0.025) and anastomosis time (10.1 ± 4.8 vs. 21.8 ± 9.9, P < 0.001) of Group B was significantly reduced compared with Group A. Estimated blood loss in Group B was significantly lower than that in Group A (95.9 ± 11.1 vs. 180.2 ± 99.7, P = 0.006). About perioperative complications, Group B was also less compared with Group A (1.9% vs. 7.9%, P = 0.047). As to the usage of postoperative analgesics, Group B apparently used less than that in Group A (6.6% vs. 62.9%, P < 0.001), which is consistent with the visual analogue scale (VAS) of the two groups (1.7 ± 1.3 vs. 7.8 ± 1.1, P < 0.001). Patients in Group B were significantly more satisfied with incision healing than in group A (74.9 ± 9.3 vs. 49.7 ± 5.8, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference both in BCR rate and time between Group B and Group A. In urination control, more patients in Group B did not have urinary incontinence 3 month after RP compared with Group A (81.1% vs. 67.4%, P = 0.028). Conclusions: LESS RP is proved to be feasible for the proper patients, but it is difficult to popularized due to inconvenient operation. While by means of TU-LESS, operating difficulty can be significantly decreased. TU-LESS RP will be wildly accepted by surgeons and patients because of cosmetic satisfaction and quicker recovery.