Analysis of clinical effect of transperitoneal approach and extraperitoneal approach for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Qingshui Zheng,Hai Cai,Ning Xu,Xueyi Xue,Yong Wei,Xiaodong Li,Jinbei Huang,Tao Jiang,Xionglin Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-0848.2013.12.008

2013-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate the efficiency of transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (T-LRP) and extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (E-LRP). Methods Clinical data 130 patients with prostate cancer who underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy from January 2010 and December 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. Of these patients, 72 were done by transperitoneal style and 58 by extraperitoneal style. The BMI, preoperative PSA, preoperative Gleason grade, c-TNM, operating time, bleeding volume during operation, blood transfusions rate, postoperative pain, the recovery time of intestinal function, the duration of catheterization, hospitalization stay after operation, complication, p-TNM, continence rate were comparatively analyzed. Results Operations of two groups were all successfully performed. One case of T-LRP group and 1 case of E-LRP were converted to open surgery. The mean operating time of T-LRP group was longer than that of the E-LRP group, (120.6±92.6)min vs.(110.8±100.5)min ,and there was statistical difference between these two groups(P<0.001). The mean bleeding volume during operation of T-LRP group was more than that of the E-LRP group , (110.9±50.6)ml vs.(95.8±123.5)ml, there was a statistical difference between these two groups(P<0.05). The duration of catheterization of T-LRP group was longer than that of the E-LRP group, (13.42±4.64)days vs.(12.33±4.82)days, there was a statistical difference between these two groups (P<0.05). The hospitalization of T-LRP group was longer than that of the E-LRP group, (14.54±5.25)days vs.(11.63±5.82)days, there was a statistical difference between these two groups(P<0.05). 120 patients were followed up for 6~42months, and the median time was 32 months. In the T-LRP group and E-LRP group, the continence rate at the time of pulling the urine tube was 48.6%(35/72)vs34.5%(20/58); the six-month continence rate was 63.8%(46/72)vs. 89.6%(52/58), there was statistical difference between these two groups(P<0.05, P<0.001,separately).But there was no statistical difference between these two groups in the one-year continence rate (P=0.324). Conclusion E-LRP and T-LRP have the equivalent oncological and functional outcomes. ELRP is superior to T-LRP with respect to faster recovery of continence. E-LRP shows some advantage over T-LRP including the small of intraoperative trauma ,short operation time, fewer abdominal complications, quicker recovery, etc.