Anesthesia for Open Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy: A Comparison between Combined Spinal Epidural Anesthesia and Combined General Epidural Anesthesia

Effectiveness and safety of spinal anesthesia in patients undergoing open radical retropubic prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

Prostate cancer is one of the most widespread neoplasms affecting the male gender. The most commonly used procedures in various urological centers are laparoscopic and robotic surgery because they are considered minimally invasive techniques. We present our experience in traditional open radical prostatectomy performed under spinal anesthesia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed the clinical courses of 88 consecutive patients who underwent open radical prostatectomy performed under spinal anesthesia at our Institution.

RESULTS

Median age: 67.7 years. Median follow up duration: 48 months. Median pre-operative PSA: 15,9 ng/ml, median Prostate weight: 44.5 gr, median surgical time: 96.5 minutes (range 55-138). Perioperative complications were recorded. The most frequent complication was anemia, 9 cases need blood transfusion after surgery. Complications directly related to spinal anesthesia were not observed. Most patients were discharged within 5 days from the procedure. After two weeks we observed a quick recovery of total continence in 90% of patients. After 6 months all patients were perfectly continent. Erectile dysfunction after 6 months was reported by 48 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The reasons why the gold standard of radical prostatectomy surgery has been considered general anesthesia are essentially two: the long duration of the surgical procedure and the associated significant blood loss. Multiple evidences show that radical retropubic prostatectomy can be safely performed under spinal anaesthesia with various advantages. It is therefore no longer justified to consider general anesthesia as the gold standard for radical prostatectomy with an open technique.

The effects of method of anaesthesia on the safety and effectiveness of Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to determine if patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy with localized prostate cancer under combined (epidural-spinal) anaesthesia have any benefit over patients undergoing the procedure under general anaesthesia.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with clinically localised prostate cancer, scheduled for radical retropubic prostatectomy, were allocated to undergo the operation under either general anaesthesia (GA) or under combined (epidural-spinal) (CESA) anaesthesia. Several parameters were recorded both preoperatively (medical history, biometric data, PSA, biopsy Gleason score) and postoperatively (blood pressure, heart rate, haemoglobin levels, operation time and total hospital stay). In addition, mean arterial pressure, change in heart rate, total blood loss, blood transfusions, SAS score, intravenous fluid administration and operation time were also noted down intraoperatively. Patient pain levels and total satisfaction were evaluated using appropriate questionnaires. At the 12-month follow-up, biochemical recurrence using PSA levels and urinary continence status were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients were included (30 in each group). Intraoperatively, mean MAP and heart rate change was higher in the GA group (MAP+7,46, HR+27) and mean SAS was higher in the CESA group (+0.93). The time needed for patients' recovery was faster (-3.5 min) and hospitalization was shorter for patients in the CESA group (-0.6 days). Intraoperative blood loss, time for induction and duration of operation were not significantly different. Mean postoperative drop of haemoglobin was greater in the GA group (+0.56) while blood transfusions, VAS pain scores and amount of intravenous fluids did not differ significantly between the two groups. No complications were reported. Patient satisfaction and urinary continence were comparable between the groups and there were no cases of biochemical recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Radical retropubic prostatectomy can safely be performed under combined (spinal epidural anaesthesia, with possible benefits of lower blood loss, less post-operative complications and earlier discharge. Both procedures have equal oncological and functional outcomes at the 12-month follow-up.

Neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia in patients undergoing three-dimensional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Preliminary results of a prospective comparative study

Objective

Neuraxial anesthesia (NA) showed to reduce both morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. We aimed to investigate the use of NA in patients undergoing transperitoneal three-dimensional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (t-3DLRP) and compare the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes with a control group of patients undergoing t-3DLRP under general anesthesia (GA).

Methods

A prospective, double-center, double-surgeon study cohort of 84 consecutive patients undergoing t-3DLRP between June 2019 and June 2021 was analyzed. A study group of 42 patients undergoing t-3DLRP under NA was compared with a control group of 42 patients undergoing t-3DLRP under GA.

Results

The two group were similar in all demographic, clinical, and pathological variables. Postoperative blood gas parameters were within physiologic limits in both groups. Muscle relaxation was adequate for surgery during both NA and GA. Median length of stay was 1 day shorter for NA group than GA group (5 days vs. 6 days, p=0.05). t-3DLRP under NA had a statistically lower rate of minor complications (4.8% vs. 19.0%, p=0.03) and less postoperative pain (median numeric rating scale 3 vs. 4, p=0.01) compared to GA. No major complications were observed in both groups. Significantly more patients were willing to undergo a similar intervention under NA than GA (p=0.04).

Conclusion

t-3DLRP under NA is a feasible and safe procedure, with less postoperative pain and fewer minor complications than the same procedure under GA. NA allows the maintenance of muscle relaxation and respiratory excursions without interfering with surgery.