Comparison of Perioperative, Functional, and Oncological Outcomes of Transperitoneal and Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy

Clinical study of 3D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches

OBJECTIVE

Comparison of the clinical effectiveness and safety of three-dimensional transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (3D TLRP) versus 3D extraperitoneal LRP (3D ELRP) for prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To retrospectively analyze the clinical and regular postoperative follow-up data of patients who underwent 3D LRP performed by the same attending surgeon at the Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical College between 2017 and 2022. A total of 82 patients who met the criteria were included. They were divided into 3D TLRP (n = 39) and 3D ELRP groups (n = 43) according to the surgical approach. The preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were compared.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in preoperative characteristics between the two groups. There were also no statistically significant differences between the 3D TLRP and 3D ELRP groups in terms of intraoperative blood transfusion rate (12.82% vs. 2.33%), positive lymph node rate (11.11% vs. 2.38%), positive surgical margin rate (12.82% vs. 6.98%), pathological Gleason score, postoperative clinical stage, perioperative complication rate (10.26% vs. 4.65%), immediate urinary control rate (56.41% vs. 58.14%), 3-month postoperative urinary control rate (76.92% vs. 74.42%), 6-month postoperative urinary control rate (87.18% vs. 83.72%), 6-month postoperative biochemical recurrence rate (7.69% vs. 9.30%), or 6-month postoperative sexual function recovery rate (2.56% vs. 2.33%) (P > 0.05). Compared with the 3D ELRP group, the 3D TLRP group had a longer operative time (232.36 ± 48.52 min vs. 212.07 ± 41.76 min), more estimated blood loss (150.000 [100.0, 200.0] vs. 100.000 [100.0, 125.0]), longer recovery of gastrointestinal function (2.72 ± 0.89 vs. 2.26 ± 0.88), longer duration of drainage tube retention (5.69 ± 1.79 vs. 4.28 ± 2.68), and longer hospitalization time (12.54 ± 4.07 vs. 10.88 ± 2.97), with statistical significance (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

3D TLRP and 3D ELRP have similar oncologic and functional outcomes. Clinically, physicians can choose a reasonable procedure according to the patient's specific situation and their own surgical experience.

Transperitoneal Versus Extraperitoneal Approach for Laparoscopic and Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

To conduct a comparative analysis of outcomes from 2 different surgical approaches, transperitoneal radical prostatectomy (TP-RP) and extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EP-RP) in minimally invasive surgery. A comprehensive search was conducted up to September 2022 using 5 online databases, namely PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, EMBASE, and Science Direct. Studies were screened per the eligibility criteria, and outcomes included operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), hospital stay, operative complication, and positive surgical margin. Total of 13 studies compiled of 2387 patients were selected, with TP-RP and EP-RP performed on 1117 (46.79%) and 1270 (53.21%) patients, respectively. Six laparoscopy radical prostatectomy (LRP) studies and 7 robotassisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) studies with 1140 and 1247 patients, respectively, were also included. The EP-RP demonstrated a marked advantage in terms of operative complications (Risk Ratio [RR]=0.78, 95% CI=0.62, 0.98; P=.04), but no significant difference concluded for operative duration, EBL, hospital stay, and surgical margin. In the RARP group, there was a significant difference in operative duration for EP-RARP and TP-RARP (Mean difference [MD]=-17.27, 95% CI=-26.89, -7.65; P=.0004), hospital stay (MD=-0.54, 95% CI=-0.94, -0.14; P=.008), and operative complications (RR=0.7, 95% CI=0.49, 0.99; P=.04). There were no noteworthy variations identified in EBL and surgical margin. Furthermore, the LRP group did not show any significant differences. This study shows that regardless of the techniques used, EP-RP has a lower risk of operative complications than TP-RP, with no significant difference in other outcomes.