Propensity-Score Matched Analysis Between Extraperitoneal Single Port and Intraperitoneal Multiport Radical Prostatectomy: A Single-Institutional Experience.

MedStar author(s):
Citation: Urology. 2022 Apr 12PMID: 35427674Department: MedStar Georgetown University Hospital/MedStar Washington Hospital Center | Urology Residency-CategoricalForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Journal ArticleSubject headings: IN PROCESS -- NOT YET INDEXEDYear: 2022ISSN:
  • 0090-4295
Name of journal: UrologyAbstract: CONCLUSIONS: The single port robotic system is a safe option for localized prostate cancer treatment, offering superior pain control and comparable perioperative results and intermediate-term functional outcomes compared to the multiport robotic approach. Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated all patients who underwent robotic prostatectomy by three urologic surgeons at our institution between January 2019 and October 2020. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected and assessed. Patients were matched based on body mass index, Gleason group, and prostate volume using the optimal matching method.OBJECTIVES: To compare the perioperative results and intermediate-term functional outcomes of single port and multiport robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy by using a propensity-score analysis.RESULTS: Overall, 98 and 165 patients underwent single port and multiport robotic prostatectomy, respectively. Following propensity-score matching, 98 multiport cases were matched 1:1 to single port cases. The median operative time was lower for multiport (111.5 vs 147.0 minutes, p=0.0000). Single port had a lower median estimated blood loss (50.0 vs 75.0 mL, p=0.0006), pain score on postoperative day 0 (1.0 vs 2.0, p=0.0004), opioid use at postoperative day 1 (0.0 [IQR 0.0-5.0] vs 0.0 MME [IQR 0.0-7.5], p=0.0058), cumulative opioid use (2.0 vs 7.0 MME, p=0.0008), and lymph node yield (4.0 vs 7.0 nodes, p=0.0051). Single port had a greater percentage of men regain full erectile function by 6 months (23.8% vs 4.8%, p=0.002).All authors: Ahmed M, Billah M, Harrison R, Koster H, Lovallo G, Lulla T, Rosa RS, Stifelman M, Zaifman JFiscal year: FY2022Digital Object Identifier: Date added to catalog: 2022-05-11
Holdings
Item type Current library Collection Call number Status Date due Barcode
Journal Article MedStar Authors Catalog Article 35427674 Available 35427674

CONCLUSIONS: The single port robotic system is a safe option for localized prostate cancer treatment, offering superior pain control and comparable perioperative results and intermediate-term functional outcomes compared to the multiport robotic approach. Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated all patients who underwent robotic prostatectomy by three urologic surgeons at our institution between January 2019 and October 2020. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected and assessed. Patients were matched based on body mass index, Gleason group, and prostate volume using the optimal matching method.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the perioperative results and intermediate-term functional outcomes of single port and multiport robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy by using a propensity-score analysis.

RESULTS: Overall, 98 and 165 patients underwent single port and multiport robotic prostatectomy, respectively. Following propensity-score matching, 98 multiport cases were matched 1:1 to single port cases. The median operative time was lower for multiport (111.5 vs 147.0 minutes, p=0.0000). Single port had a lower median estimated blood loss (50.0 vs 75.0 mL, p=0.0006), pain score on postoperative day 0 (1.0 vs 2.0, p=0.0004), opioid use at postoperative day 1 (0.0 [IQR 0.0-5.0] vs 0.0 MME [IQR 0.0-7.5], p=0.0058), cumulative opioid use (2.0 vs 7.0 MME, p=0.0008), and lymph node yield (4.0 vs 7.0 nodes, p=0.0051). Single port had a greater percentage of men regain full erectile function by 6 months (23.8% vs 4.8%, p=0.002).

English

Powered by Koha