Copyright
©2013 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Clin Urol. Jul 24, 2013; 2(2): 3-9
Published online Jul 24, 2013. doi: 10.5410/wjcu.v2.i2.3
Published online Jul 24, 2013. doi: 10.5410/wjcu.v2.i2.3
Table 1 Comparision of peri-operative and safety profiles of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
| Characteristic | tRARP (n = 50) | eRARP (n = 70) |
| Mean total operative time (min) | 255.7 (155-490) | 236.8 (170-375) |
| Prostatectomy console time (min) | 198.3 ± 64 (120-420) | 145.1 ± 38.7 (96-293) |
| Mean blood loss (mL) | 342 ± 320 (50-2000) | 372 ± 368 (100-2500) |
| Drain use | 50/50 | 25/70 |
| Length of stay (mean) | 3.52 ± 2 (2-12) | 1.94 ± 1.38 (1-8) (P < 0.0002) |
| Intra-operative complications (Clavien Grade) | 1 Ureteric injury (Grade 2) | 1 Rectal injury (Grade 2) |
| Post-operative complications (Clavien Grade) | 1 Arm neuropraxia (Grade 1) | 1 Urinary retention (Grade 1) |
| 1 Blood transfusion (Grade 2) | 2 Blood transfusions (Grade 2) | |
| 1 Anastomotic leak requiring suprapubic catheter insertion on readmission (Grade 3b) | 2 Pelvic collection/haematoma requiring percuataneous drainage (Grade 3a) |
- Citation: Anderson C, Ayres B, Issa R, Perry M, Liatsikos E, Stolzenburg JU, Ghani KR. Extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Comparison with transperitoneal technique. World J Clin Urol 2013; 2(2): 3-9
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2219-2816/full/v2/i2/3.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5410/wjcu.v2.i2.3