Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of oncological and functional outcomes of perineoscopic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Updates in Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study is to compare the functional, oncological, and complication outcomes of perineoscopic radical prostatectomy (PeRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) operations. Patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) between October 2018 and June 2020 for localized prostate cancer (N0, < T3) were retrospectively screened. After the exclusion criteria, 56 patients who underwent PeRP and 67 patients who underwent RARP remained in the study. Demographic, perioperative, and postoperative data were collected. In functional outcomes, continence and potency status were compared at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. The mean age of the patients was 61.3 ± 5.9 years in the PeRP group and 62.2 ± 5.7 years in the RARP group. No statistically significant differences were present between preoperative and postoperative values. Among the perioperative findings, the mean operation time was 90.4 ± 11.2 min for the PeRP group and 114.6 ± 14.7 min for the RARP group. The operation time was shorter in the PeRP group. The average hospital stay was 2 ± 0.6 days in the PeRP group and 2.3 ± 0.5 days in the RARP group. It was significantly shorter in the PeRP group. There is no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the oncological and functional results. PeRP is a surgical procedure safe in low-risk patients with medium-risk prostate cancer (PCa) who do not require lymph-node dissection. Moreover, PeRP minimizes the difficulties of perineal surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All materials are available upon request.

References

  1. Rawla P (2019) Epidemiology of prostatecancer. World J Oncol 10(2):63–89. https://doi.org/10.14740/wjon1191PubMedGoogleScholar

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. CancerResearch UK. Prostate cancer statistics. 2021. Accessed 29 Jul 2021. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/prostate-cancer#heading-Zero

  3. Coughlin GD, Yaxley JW, Chambers SK et al (2018) Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: 24-month outcomes from a randomized controlled study. Lancet Oncol 19(8):1051–1060. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30357-7. (PubMed Google Scholar)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wilt TJ, Vo TN, Langsetmo L, Dahm P, Wheeler T, Aronson WJ et al (2020) Radical prostatectomy or observation for clinically localized prostate cancer: extended follow-up of the prostate cancer intervention versus observation trial (PIVOT). Eur Urol 77(6):713–724

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bianco FJ Jr, Scardino PT, Eastham JA (2005) Radical prostatectomy: long-term cancer control and recovery of sexual and urinary function (“trifecta”). Urology 66(5 Suppl):83–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Patel VR, Sivaraman A, Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Palmer KJ, Orvieto MA et al (2011) Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 59(5):702–707

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Basiri A, de la Rosette JJ, Tabatabaei S, Woo HH, Laguna MP, Shemshaki H (2018) Comparison of retropubic, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: who is the winner? World J Urol 36(4):609–621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang B, Zhou J, Wu S, Guo M, Zhang Y, Liu R (2020) The impact of surgical margin status on prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Transl Oncol 22(11):2087–2096

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Song W, Park JH, Jeon HG, Jeong BC, Seo SI, Jeon SS et al (2017) Comparison of oncologic outcomes and complications according to surgical approach to radical prostatectomy: special focus on the perineal approach. Clin Genitourin Cancer 15(4):e645–e652

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tuğcu V, Ekşi M, Sahin S, Çolakoğlu Y, Simsek A, Evren İ et al (2020) Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: a review of 95 cases. BJU Int 125(4):573–578

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Harris MJ (2003) Radical perineal prostatectomy: cost efficient, outcome effective, minimally invasive prostate cancer management. Eur Urol 44(3):303–308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tuğcu V, Akça O, Şimşek A, Yiğitbaşı İ, Şahin S, Taşçı Aİ (2017) Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: first experience of 15 cases. Turk J Urol 43(4):476–483. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2017.35488. (Epub 2017 Dec 1. PMID: 29201511; PMCID: PMC5687211)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Taşçı Aİ, Şimşek A, Şam E, Şeker KG, Atar FA, Şahin S (2019) Perineoscopic radical prostatectomy: a novel surgical technique for the treatment of prostate cancer. Turk J Urol 46(1):31–36. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2019.19052. (PMID:31658015; PMCID:PMC6944416)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Patel VR, Tully AS, Holmes R et al (2005) Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol 174:269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Eliya F, Kernen K, Gonzalez J, Peters K, Ibrahim I, Petzel K (2011) Radical perineal prostatectomy: a learning curve? Int Urol Nephrol 43(1):139–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-010-9781-0. (Epub 2010 Sep 30 PMID: 20882343)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jo JK, Jeong SJ, Oh JJ, Lee SW, Lee S, Hong SK et al (2018) Effect of starting penile rehabilitation with sildenafil immediately after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy on erectile function recovery: a prospective randomized trial. J Urol 199(6):1600–1606

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Horuz R, Göktaş C, Çetinel CA, Akca O, Canguven O, Sahin C et al (2013) Simple preoperative parameters to assess technical difficulty during a radical perineal prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol 45(1):129–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kaouk JH, Akca O, Zargar H, Caputo P, Ramirez D, Andrade H et al (2016) Descriptive technique and initial results for robotic radical perineal prostatectomy. Urology 94:129–138

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Heaton JP (1994) Video-assisted perineal and open surgery. J Urol 152(3):923

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Resnick MI (2003) Radical perineal prostatectomy. BJU Int 92(6):522–523

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Costello A, Eastham JA et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62(3):431–452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Alibhai SM, Leach M, Tomlinson G, Krahn MD, Fleshner N, Holowaty E et al (2005) 30-day mortality and major complications after radical prostatectomy: influence of age and comorbidity. J Natl Cancer Inst 97(20):1525–1532

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gillitzer R, Thomas C, Wiesner C, Jones J, Schmidt F, Hampel C et al (2010) Single center comparison of anastomotic strictures after radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 76(2):417–422

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Branche B, Crocerossa F, Carbonara U, Klausner AP, Roseman JT, Hampton LJ et al (2021) Management of bladder neck contracture in the age of robotic prostatectomy: an evidence-based guide. Eur Urol Focus S2405–4569(21):00008

    Google Scholar 

  25. Wroński S (2012) Radical perineal prostatectomy—the contemporary resurgence of a genuinely minimally invasive procedure: procedure outline. Comparison of the advantages, disadvantages, and outcomes of different surgical techniques of treating organ-confined prostate cancer (PCa). A literature review with special focus on perineal prostatectomy. Cent European J Urol 65(4):188–194

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Yablon CM, Banner MP, Ramchandani P, Rovner ES (2004) Complications of prostate cancer treatment: spectrum of imaging findings. Radiographics 24(Suppl 1):181–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Amorim GL, Cruz GM, Veloso DF, Kartabil JD, Vieira JC, Alves PR (2010) Comparative analysis of radical prostatectomy techniques using perineal or suprapubic approach in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Einstein (Sao Paulo) 8(2):200–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Prasad SM, Gu X, Lavelle R, Lipsitz SR, Hu JC (2011) Comparative effectiveness of perineal versus retropubic and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. J Urol 185(1):111–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.08.090. (Epub 2010 Nov 12 PMID: 21074198)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhang L, Wu B, Zha Z, Zhao H, Jiang Y, Yuan J (2018) Positive surgical margin is associated with biochemical recurrence risk following radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis from high-quality retrospective cohort studies. World J Surg Oncol 16(1):124

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Huang X, Wang L, Zheng X, Wang X (2017) Comparison of perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes between standard laparoscopic and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 31(3):1045–1060

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tasci AI, Simsek A, Sam E, Seker KG, Atar FA, Sahin S et al (2020) Gasless robotic perineal radical prostatectomy: experience of the first 12 cases. Arch Esp Urol 73(3):236–241 (English, Spanish. PMID: 32240115)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Badani KK, Kaul S, Menon M (2007) Evolution of robotic radical prostatectomy: assesment after 2766 procedures. Cancer 110:1951–1958

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Liesenfeld L, Kron M, Gschwend JE, Herkommer K (2017) Prognostic factors for biochemical recurrence more than 10 years after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 197:143–148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Comploj E, Pycha A (2012) Experience with radical perineal prostatectomy in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Ther Adv Urol 4(3):125–131

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, Badani KK, Fumo M, Bhandari M et al (2007) Vattikuti institute prostatectomy: comtemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol 51:648–657

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Novara G, Ficarra V, D’elia C, Secco S, Cio A, Cavalleri S, Artibani W (2010) Evaluating urinary continence and preoperative predictors of urinary continence after robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 184(3):1028–1033

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Tuğcu V, Akça O, Şimşek A, Yiğitbaşı İ, Şahin S, Yenice MG et al (2019) Robotic-assisted perineal versus transperitoneal radical prostatectomy: a matched-pair analysis. Turk J Urol 45(4):265–272

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Tasci AI, Simsek A, Torer BD, Sokmen D, Sahin S, Tugcu V (2014) Fascia-sparing intrafascial nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and anatomic vesicourethral anastomosis: point of technique. Arch Esp Urol 67(9):731–739

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

No.

Funding

The authors declared that this study has received no financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urology, Mus State Hospital, Saray Mah., Yeni Hastane Cad., No:1/A, Muş Merkez, Turkey

    Yusuf Arikan

  2. Department of Urology, Bakirkoy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, Zuhuratbaba Mh. Tevfik Saglam Cd. No:11 Bakirkoy, Istanbul, Turkey

    Mithat Eksi & Ali Ihsan Tasci

Authors
  1. Yusuf Arikan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mithat Eksi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ali Ihsan Tasci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception: AIT and YA. Design: YA and AIT. Supervision: AIT, ME, and YA. Fundings: None. Materials: YA and AIT. Data collection: YA and ME. Analysis: ME and AIT. Literature review: YA and AIT. Writer: YA. Critical review: AIT, ME, and YA.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yusuf Arikan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest was declared by the authors.

Ethical approval

Ethics committee approval was received for this study from the ethics committee of Health Science University Bakırköy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from patients who participated in this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arikan, Y., Eksi, M. & Tasci, A.I. Comparison of oncological and functional outcomes of perineoscopic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Updates Surg 75, 1027–1035 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-023-01453-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-023-01453-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation