Laparoscopic VS Open Radical Prostatectomy. Comparison of Perioperative and Early Postoperative Outcomes in the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer. A Single-Center Quasi-Experimental Study in Ireland

Laparoscopic VS Open Radical Prostatectomy. Comparison of Perioperative and Early Postoperative Outcomes in the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer. A Single-Center Quasi-Experimental Study in Ireland

Authors

  • Nadeem Bin Nusrat Department of Urology, Pakistan Kidney and Liver Institute and Research Centre Lahore, Pakistan
  • Nauman Zafar Department of Urology, Pakistan Kidney and Liver Institute and Research Centre Lahore, Pakistan
  • Shujah Muhammad Department of Urology, Pakistan Kidney and Liver Institute and Research Centre Lahore, Pakistan
  • Assad ur Rehman Department of Urology, Pakistan Kidney and Liver Institute and Research Centre Lahore, Pakistan
  • Kilian Walsh 5Department of Urology, University Hospital Galway, National University of Ireland, Ireland
  • Gareth Durkan Department of Urology, Pakistan Kidney and Liver Institute and Research Centre Lahore, Pakistan
  • Saira Imtiaz Department of Urology, Pakistan Kidney and Liver Institute and Research Centre Lahore, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21649/akemu.v30i2.5426

Keywords:

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy; Open radical prostatectomy; Perioperative outcomes; Early postoperative outcomes; Localized prostate cancer.

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to open radical prostatectomy for the management of localized prostate cancer. Despite ongoing debates regarding their comparative benefits and drawbacks, comprehensive evaluations of perioperative and early postoperative outcomes are essential.

Objectives: To compare perioperative and early postoperative outcomes between laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy techniques in the management of localized prostate cancer.

Methods: This single-center quasi-experimental study was initiated after approval in January 2015 from College of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences Research Ethics committee with approval no: NN29. In two years, retrospective analysis of 66 case of laparoscopic group (LG) and 59 cases of open group (OG) of radical prostatectomy cases performed. Predefined criteria guided patient selection, and data were collected prospectively on perioperative factors. Statistical analyses were conducted to compare outcomes between the two surgical approaches. Consent was taken from participants.

Results: Mean ages were LG 57.95±6.68 years and OG 60.13±5.45 years. Preoperative prostate-specific antigen levels were LG 6.68±2.78 ng/mL and OG 8.85±4.32 ng/mL. Distribution of preoperative grades differed between both groups. Mean operating times were LG 195.6 minutes±26.11 and OG 167.5 minutes±30.50. Blood loss averaged LG 406.6 mL±144.64 and OG 1057 mL±620.68. Postoperative stay durations were LG 4.94 days±2.91 and OG 6.46 days±1.93. Histological stages and grades varied postoperatively in both groups.

Conclusion: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy's advantages over open surgery for localized prostate cancer, citing reduced blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and quicker recovery. Despite longer operating times, laparoscopic cases demonstrate benefits, contributing to the debate on surgical approaches.

References

Rawla P. Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer. W. 2019;10(2):63-89.

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2023;73(1):17-48.

Mitsogianni M, Papatsoris A, Bala VM, Issa H, Moussa M, Mitsogiannis I. An overview of hormonal directed pharmacotherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer. Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy. 2023;24(16):1765-1774.

Wu E, High R, Lewis C, Kuehl TJ, Danford JM, Yandell PM. Retropubic mid-urethral slings and de novo urinary urgency and frequency: The role of retropubic hematomas. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2021;40(6):1686-1694.

Lomas DJ, Ahmed HU. All change in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol . 2020;17(6):372-381.

Mehraban D. Clinical value of intravesical prostatic protrusion in the evaluation and management of prostatic and other lower urinary tract diseases. Asian J. Urol. 2017;4(3):174-180.

Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence Following Radical Prostatectomy: Insight into Etiology and Prevention. Urol. J . 2017;197(2S): S165-S170.

Moretti TBC, Magna LA, Reis LO. Surgical Results and Complications for Open, Laparoscopic, and Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Reverse Systematic Review. EU Open Science. 2022; 44(1):150-161.

Bhayani SB, Pavlovich CP, Hsu TS, Sullivan W, Su LM. Prospective comparison of short-term convalescence: laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Adult Urology: CME Article. 2003;61(3):612-616.

Slabaugh TK Jr, Marshall FF. A comparison of minimally invasive open and laparoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2004;172(6 Pt 2):2545-2548. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000145059.44004.3b.

Sirisopana K, Jenjitranant P, Sangkum P, Kijvikai K, Pacharatakul S, Leenanupun C, et al. Perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and open radical prostatectomy: 10 years of cases at Ramathibodi Hospital. Transl Androl Urol . 2019;8(5):467-475.

Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Barry MJ, D’Amico AV, Weinberg AC, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. Jama. 2009 Oct 14;302(14):1557-64. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1451.

Ghavamian R, Knoll A, Boczko J, Melman A. Comparison of operative and functional outcomes of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and radical retropubic prostatectomy: Single surgeon experience. Urology. 2006;67(6):1241-1246.

Touijer K, Guillonneau B. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A critical analysis of surgical quality. European Urology. 2006;49(4):625-632.

Rassweiler J, Seemann O, Schulze M, Teber D, Hatzinger M, Frede T. Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. J Urol. 2003;169(5):1689-1693.

Penezić L, Kuliš T, Hudolin T, Zekulić T, Saić H, Kaštelan Ž. LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: SINGLE CENTER CASE SERIES. Acta Clinica Croatica. 2022;61(Suppl 3):15-20.

Kania P, Wośkowiak P, Salagierski M. Preservation of continence in radical prostatectomy patients: a laparoscopic surgeon's perspective. Cent European J Urol. 2019;72(1):32-38.

Kongcharoensombat W, Tantirangsee N, Chaimuangraj S, Leelanuphun C, Kochakarn W, Patcharatrakul S. Comparison of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy at Ramathibodi Hospital, Thailand: a retrospective review. J Med Assoc Thai. 2012;95(8):1035-1040

Downloads

Published

06/29/2024

How to Cite

Nusrat, N. B., Zafar, N., Muhammad, S., Rehman, A. ur, Walsh, K., Durkan, G., & Imtiaz, S. (2024). Laparoscopic VS Open Radical Prostatectomy. Comparison of Perioperative and Early Postoperative Outcomes in the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer. A Single-Center Quasi-Experimental Study in Ireland. Annals of King Edward Medical University, 30(2), 130–135. https://doi.org/10.21649/akemu.v30i2.5426

Issue

Vol. 30 No. 2 (2024): AKEMU

Section

Research Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Annals of King Edward Medical University

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This is an open-access journal and all the published articles / items are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. For comments publications@kemu.edu.pk