2. UroToday Home
  3. Conference Highlights
  4. SUFU WM 2015
  5. Conferences
  6. WCE 2014
  7. WCE 2014 - Prostate Cancer

#WCE2014 - Comparison of outcome between robotic assisted, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy - Interview

TAIPEI, TAIWAN (UroToday.com) - Introduction and Objectives: To evaluate the pathological outcomes and recovery of continence of open (RRP), robotic (RARP), and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) performed for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

wceMethods: We identified 265 patients who underwent surgery during 2004–2012 to treat localized prostate cancer in CMUH. Patients were divided into three groups. There are 95, 86 and 84 consecutive patients underwent RRP (group 1), RARP (group 2), and LRP (group 3). The prognostic value of the clinical parameters and pathologic factors were compared. Besides, the outcome of urinary continence were also retrospectively collected.

Results: Differences between three groups were found in duration of Foley catheter placement and estimated blood loss (p = 0.000). Pathologic outcomes such as lymph node dissection number (p = 0.000) and positive surgical margin (p = 0.016) showed difference. When continence was defined as the usage of 0–1 pad per day after 12 months, there are borderline statistical difference (p = 0.066). The continence rates within one month were 10.5%, 27.9%, 25%, and within three months were 25.2%, 41.9%, 34.5%, respectively. Patient’s return of urinary continence had correlations with estimated blood loss (P = 0.014). Patients received nerve sparing would be a predictor of better continence rate (P = 0.043).

Conclusions: RARP demonstrated similar pathologic outcomes compared to RRP and LRP. Otherwise, RARP had advantage of shorten the duration of hospital day, less duration of Foley catheter placement and less blood loss while operation. The early continence was best in RARP and one year continence rate showed no difference between three groups.

Source of Funding: None

 
Listen to an interview with Yi-Huei Chang, one of the authors of this study.

 

Presented by Yi-Huei Chang,1 Po-Jen Hsiao,1 Guang-Heng Chen,1 Chin-Chung Yeh,1 Wen-Chi Chen,1 Chieh-Lung Chou,1 Kuo-Liang Chen,1 Chi-Ping Huang,1 Hsi-Chin Wu,1, 2 Chi-Re Yang,1 and Chao-Hsiang Chang1 at the 32nd World Congress of Endourology & SWL - September 3 - 7, 2014 - Taipei, Taiwan

1China Medical University Hospital, Urology Department, Taiwan
2Tainan Municipal An-nan Hospital-china Medical University, Taiwan