Abstract

Objective: We compared the outcomes of robotic-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy (r-PRP) versus robotic-assisted transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP).

Material and methods: Between November 2016 and September 2017 in our center, 40 patients underwent r-PRP, and 40 patients underwent RARP. All patients also underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to exclude the cases with locally advanced disease. Patients with localized prostate cancer (C–T2N0M0) were included in the study. The exclusion criteria were contraindications for undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy; the Gleason score ≥4+3; extracapsular extension proven on biopsy or suspected on mpMRI; clinical stage ≥T2c; required pelvic lymph dissection according to Partin’s normogram; previous radiation therapy; hormonal therapy; any previous prostatic, urethral, or bladder neck surgery; and preoperative urinary incontinence or erectile dysfunction. Patients were placed in the exaggerated lithotomy position with 15° Trendelenburg for r-PRP and 40° Trendelenburg for RARP.

Results: The mean age for the r-PRP and RARP groups were 61.2 (46–73) and 62.2 (50–75) years, respectively. The mean body mass index was significantly higher in the r-PRP group (p=0.02). The mean procedure duration time was 169.4 (100–255) minutes for the r-PRP group and 173.1 (130–210) minutes for the RARP group. The mean console time and anastomosis time were significantly lower for the r-PRP group. The mean estimated blood loss was significantly lower for the r-PRP group (p=0.002). Immediate continence rates in the r-PRP and RARP groups following the urethral catheter removal were 42% and 35% (p=0.30), respectively. Continence rates increased to 94.2% in the r-PRP and 72% in RARP (p=0.001) group at the 6th month, and to 95% in the r-PRP and 85.2% in RARP (p=0.02) group at the 9th month follow-up period. According to the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5), the erectile function rates at the 3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-up in the r-PRP group were 44%, 66%, and 75%, respectively. The rates in the RARP group at the 3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-up were 25%, 42%, and 66% (p=0.001), respectively.

Conclusion: In our experience, r-PRP has acceptable morbidity, excellent surgical and pathological outcomes, and satisfactory oncologic and functional results compared to RARP.

Cite this article as: Tuğcu V, Akça O, Şimşek A, Yiğitbaşı İ, Şahin S, Yenice MG, et al. Robotic-assisted perineal versus transperitoneal radical prostatectomy: A matched-pair analysis. Turk J Urol 2019; 45(4): 265-72.