Publication:
Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) and LRP in patients with prostate cancer based on risk groups

dc.contributor.authorNapat Amornratananonten_US
dc.contributor.authorKun Sirisopanaen_US
dc.contributor.authorSuchin Worawichawongen_US
dc.contributor.authorPanas Chalermsanyakornen_US
dc.contributor.authorPremsant Sangkumen_US
dc.contributor.authorSuthep Pacharatakulen_US
dc.contributor.authorCharoen Leenanupunthen_US
dc.contributor.authorWisoot Kongchareonsombaten_US
dc.contributor.otherFaculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherPolice Hospitalen_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-05-05T05:52:16Z
dc.date.available2020-05-05T05:52:16Z
dc.date.issued2020-01-01en_US
dc.description.abstract© 2020, © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Objective: To compare the perioperative and pathological outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) and LRP based on the patient’s risk. Patients and methods: The medical records of 588 patients with prostate cancer who underwent RP, using minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques (240 LRP and 348 RALRP) by a single surgeon during January 2008 to June 2018 at the Ramathibodi Hospital, were retrospectively reviewed. The patient’s risk was classified according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guideline, 2018. The demographic, perioperative, and pathological data of patients were collected. The differences in perioperative and pathological outcomes between LRP and RALRP in each risk classification were assessed using chi-square, Fisher’s exact tests and logistic regression, as appropriate. Results: In terms of positive margins, RALRP had significant advantages in high-risk patients when compared to LRP (adjusted odds ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.26–0.84), while there were no differences in the low- and intermediate-risk patients. Overall, the patients who underwent RALRP had significant advantages over those who underwent LRP in terms of operative time, estimate blood loss, and blood transfusion rate. While, adjacent organ injury rate and length of hospital stay were similar for both techniques in all subgroup analyses. Conclusion: MIS techniques appear to be safe, especially RALRP, which has significantly better perioperative outcomes in all subgroups of patient risk classification, and in the high-risk patient group it seems to have better pathological outcomes when compared to LRP. Abbreviations: EBL: estimated blood loss; LOS: length of hospital stay; PSM: positive surgical margin; (L)(O)(RAL)RP: (laparoscopic) (open) (robot-assisted laparoscopic) radical prostatectomy; MIS: minimally invasive surgery.en_US
dc.identifier.citationArab Journal of Urology. (2020)en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/2090598X.2020.1750865en_US
dc.identifier.issn20905998en_US
dc.identifier.issn2090598Xen_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85083518828en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/54658
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85083518828&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titlePerioperative outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) and LRP in patients with prostate cancer based on risk groupsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85083518828&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections