Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology 3/2022

14-02-2022 | Erectile Dysfunction | Original Article

Versatility of 3D laproscopy for radical prostatectomy: A single tertiary cancer center experience

Authors: Dipin Jayaprakash, Keval Patel, Mohamed Mithi, Harish Neelamraju Lakshmi, Shahsank Pandya

Published in: Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology | Issue 3/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this study is to compare our institutional outcomes of 3D laparoscopic when compared with open radical prostatectomy in terms of functional and oncological outcomes.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy during the period January 2016 to September 2019 at our institute. Out of 49 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy, 23 were done by open approach and 25 were operated by 3D laparoscopy. One patient was lost to follow-up and was excluded from the study. Data were collected from medical records, and functional evaluation was done by telephonic interview. Data analysis was done by SPSS software to calculate overall and disease-free survival.

Results

Laparoscopic arm patients had lesser blood loss, postoperative pain, hospital stay and wound-related issues although they had a longer operating time. Functional outcomes in terms of erectile dysfunction and incontinence were almost similar in both open and 3D laparoscopic approach. No statistically significant difference was observed for overall survival or disease-free survival. All shortcomings with the laparoscopic arm were improved as our experience increased with 3D laparoscopic prostatectomy. The outcomes of 3D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy were comparable to previously published data of robotic radical prostatectomy.

Conclusions

3D LRP is a feasible technique with similar oncological or functional outcomes and better perioperative outcomes as compared to ORP. Being cost-effective and with comparable outcomes it is a suitable alternative to RRP in resource-limited settings.
Literature
1.
Miyake H, Kawabata G, Gotoh A, Fujisawa M, Okada H, Arakawa S et al (2002) Comparison of surgical stress between laparoscopy and open surgery in the field of urology by measurement of humoral mediators. Int J Urol 9(6):329–333CrossRef
2.
Hegarty NJ, Kaouk JH (2006) Radical prostatectomy: a comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic techniques. Can J Urol 13(Suppl 1):56–61PubMed
3.
Guillonneau B, Rozet F, Cathelineau X, Lay F, Barret E, Doublet JD et al (2002) Perioperative complications of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris 3-year experience. J Urol 167(1):51–56CrossRef
4.
Albadine R, Hyndman ME, Chaux A, Jeong JY, Saab S, Tavora F et al (2012) Characteristics of positive surgical margins in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy, open retropubic radical prostatectomy, and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a comparative histopathologic study from a single academic center. Hum Pathol 43(2):254–260CrossRef
5.
Raboy A, Ferzli G, Albert P (1997) Initial experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 50(6):849–853CrossRef
6.
Cao L, Yang Z, Qi L, Chen M (2019) Robot-assisted and laparoscopic vs open radical prostatectomy in clinically localized prostate cancer: perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes: A Systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 98(22):e15770–e15770CrossRef
7.
8.
Guillonneau B, Vallancien G (1999) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial experience and preliminary assessment after 65 operations. Prostate 39(1):71–75CrossRef
9.
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):702–707CrossRef
10.
Robertson C, Close A, Fraser C, Gurung T, Jia X, Sharma P et al (2013) Relative effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. BJU Int 112(6):798–812CrossRef
11.
Votanopoulos K, Brunicardi FC, Thornby J, Bellows CF (2008) Impact of three-dimensional vision in laparoscopic training. World J Surg 32(1):110–118CrossRef
12.
Jurczok A, Zacharias M, Wagner S, Hamza A, Fornara P (2007) Prospective non-randomized evaluation of four mediators of the systemic response after extraperitoneal laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 99(6):1461–1466CrossRef
13.
Ong WL, Evans SM, Spelman T, Kearns PA, Murphy DG, Millar JL (2016) Comparison of oncological and health-related quality of life outcomes between open and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer - findings from the population-based Victorian Prostate Cancer Registry. BJU Int 118(4):563–569CrossRef
14.
Mitre AI, Chammas MF, Rocha JEA, Duarte RJ, Ebaid GX, Rocha FT. Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: The Learning Curve of a Low Volume Surgeon. Tugcu V, Tefekli A, editors. Sci World J. 2013 2013:974276.
15.
Secin FP, Savage C, Abbou C, de La Taille A, Salomon L, Rassweiler J, et al. The learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: an international multicenter study. J Urol. 2010/10/16. 2010 Dec;184(6):2291–6.
16.
17.
Forsmark A, Gehrman J, Angenete E, Bjartell A, Bjorholt I, Carlsson S et al (2018) Health Economic Analysis of Open and Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Surgery for Prostate Cancer Within the Prospective Multicentre LAPPRO Trial. Eur Urol 74(6):816–824CrossRef
18.
Wallerstedt A, Tyritzis SI, Thorsteinsdottir T, Carlsson S, Stranne J, Gustafsson O et al (2015) Short-term Results after Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Compared to Open Radical Prostatectomy. Eur Urol 67(4):660–670CrossRef
19.
Haglind E, Carlsson S, Stranne J, Wallerstedt A, Wilderang U, Thorsteinsdottir T et al (2015) Urinary Incontinence and Erectile Dysfunction After Robotic Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy: A Prospective, Controlled. Nonrandomised Trial Eur Urol 68(2):216–225CrossRef
20.
Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, Occhipinti S, Samaratunga H, Zajdlewicz L et al (2016) Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet 388(10049):1057–1066CrossRef
21.
Guazzoni G, Cestari A, Naspro R, Riva M, Centemero A, Zanoni M et al (2006) Intra- and peri-operative outcomes comparing radical retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: results from a prospective, randomised, single-surgeon study. Eur Urol 50(1):98–104CrossRef
22.
Coughlin GD, Yaxley JW, Chambers SK, Occhipinti S, Samaratunga H, Zajdlewicz L et al (2018) Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: 24-month outcomes from a randomised controlled study. Lancet Oncol 19(8):1051–1060CrossRef
23.
Sooriakumaran P, Pini G, Nyberg T, Derogar M, Carlsson S, Stranne J et al (2018) Erectile Function and Oncologic Outcomes Following Open Retropubic and Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Results from the LAParoscopic Prostatectomy Robot Open Trial. Eur Urol 73(4):618–627CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Versatility of 3D laproscopy for radical prostatectomy: A single tertiary cancer center experience
Authors
Dipin Jayaprakash
Keval Patel
Mohamed Mithi
Harish Neelamraju Lakshmi
Shahsank Pandya
Publication date
14-02-2022
Publisher
Springer India
Published in
Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology / Issue 3/2022
Print ISSN: 0975-7651
Electronic ISSN: 0976-6952
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-022-01518-6

Other articles of this Issue 3/2022

Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology 3/2022 Go to the issue

Original Article

Advanced Autologous Lower Dermal Sling Technique for Immediate Breast Reconstruction Surgery in Small and Non-ptotic Breasts

Original Article

Efficiency of Blood Utilization in Elective Oncosurgeries in a Tertiary Care Cancer Centre: A Case for Data Disaggregation

Original Article

When to Avoid a Restaging Procedure for Non-muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer? Inferences from a Tertiary Care Center

Original Article

The Analysis of Surgical Outcomes in Operable Gastric Cancer Patients Presenting With or Without Sarcopenia

Original Article

Post-treatment Residual Clinicopathological Outcomes in Testicular Germ Cell Tumours

Original Article

Simple Technique Using an Additional Landmark to Reliably Identify the Trunk of Facial Nerve During Parotidectomy: a Cadaveric and Clinical Correlation Study