Extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Comparison with transperitoneal technique

Table 3 Summary of studies determining perioperative, oncological and safety profiles for extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Reference	Centre	Level of evidence	No. of patients	Mean operative time (min)	Mean blood loss (mL)	Complication rate (transfusion rate)	PSM rate	Hospital stay (d)	Conversions
Joseph et al[12]	Rochester, United States	4	325	180	196	9.8% (1.3%)	13%	96% < 24 h	2 converted to TP
Atug et al[4]	New Orleans, United States	4	40	229	221	12.5% (NS)	20%	Mean 1.2	none
Rozet et al[13]	Institut Montsouris, France	4	133	166	609	19.4% (9.8%)	19.50%	Mean 5.4	4 converted to LRP
Capello et al[6]	Rochester, United States	2b	31	181	199	0% (0%)	3.20%	NS	none
Madi et al[5]	Ann Arbor, United States	4	34	214	125	5.9% (0%)	23.50%	Median 1	none
Ploussard et al[16]	Henri Mondor, France	4	206	160	504	8.3% (3.4%)	27.70%	Mean 4	1 converted to LRP
Chung et al[7]	South Korea	4	155	150	351	7.1% (NS)	22.60%	Mean 5.1	none
This study	St George’s, United Kingdom	4	70	145.1	372	8.5% (2.8%)	15.70%	Mean 2	none

NS: Not stated; LRP: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy; PSM: Positive surgical margin; TP: Transperitoneal.