Initial Canadian experience with robotic simple prostatectomy: Case series and literature review

Authors

  • Nathan Y. Hoy Division of Urology, University of Alberta
  • Stephan Van Zyl Division of Urology, University of Alberta
  • Blair A. St. Martin Division of Urology, University of Alberta

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2750

Keywords:

robotic, prostatectomy, simple prostatectomy, benign prostatic hyperplasia

Abstract

Introduction: Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) has been touted as an alternative to open simple prostatectomy (OSP) to treat large gland benign prostatic hyperplasia. Our study assesses our institution’s experience with RASP and reviews the literature.

Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review from January 2011 to November 2013 of all patients undergoing RASP and OSP. Operative and 90-day outcomes, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), transfusion requirements, and complication rates, were assessed.

Results: Thirty-two patients were identified: 4 undergoing RASP and 28 undergoing OSP. There was no difference in mean age at surgery (69.3 vs. 75.2 years; p = 0.17), mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (2.5 vs. 3.5; p = 0.19), and mean prostate volume on TRUS (239 vs. 180 mL; p = 0.09) in the robotic and open groups, respectively. There was a significant difference in the mean length of operation, with RASP exceeding OSP (161 vs. 79 min; p = 0.008). The mean intraoperative blood loss was significantly higher in the open group (835.7 vs. 218.8 mL; p = 0.0001). Mean LOS was shorter in the RASP group (2.3 vs. 5.5 days; p = 0.0001). No significant differences were noted in the 90-day transfusion rate (p = 0.13), or overall complication rate at 0% with RASP vs. 57.1% with OSP (p = 0.10).

Conclusions: Our data suggest RASP has a shorter LOS and lower intraoperative volume of blood loss, with the disadvantage of a longer operating time, compared to OSP. It is a feasible technique and deserves further investigation and consideration at Canadian centres performing robotic prostatectomies.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2015-09-09

How to Cite

Hoy, N. Y., Van Zyl, S., & St. Martin, B. A. (2015). Initial Canadian experience with robotic simple prostatectomy: Case series and literature review. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 9(9-10), E626–30. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2750

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 9-10 (2015): CUAJ September

Section

Case Series

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.