Home > Journals > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica > Past Issues > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2017 February;69(1) > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2017 February;69(1):101-7

CURRENT ISSUE
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Cite this article as

MINERVA UROLOGICA E NEFROLOGICA

A Journal on Nephrology and Urology


Indexed/Abstracted in: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 0,984


eTOC

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE  FREEfree


Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2017 February;69(1):101-7

DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.16.02799-5

Copyright © 2016 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Comparing conventional laparoscopic to robotic-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection in men with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer: a matched-pair analysis

Simone ALBISINNI 1, Fouad AOUN 1, 2, Dam LE DINH 1, Marc ZANATY 1, Eric HAWAUX 1, Alexandre PELTIER 1, Roland VAN VELTHOVEN 1

1 Department of Urology, Institut Jules Bordet, Bruxelles, Belgium; 2 Saint Joseph University, “Hôtel Dieu de France”, Beirut, Lebanon


PDF  


BACKGROUND: In intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer patients, a robotic-assisted approach is increasingly being used for prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND). This is reducing the number of conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomies (LR P) and laparoscopic ePLNDs for prostate cancer in Europe. Aim of this study is to compare laparoscopic ePLND to robotic-assisted ePLND in a cohort of patients with intermediate and high risk prostate cancer.
METHODS: We performed a matched-pair analysis matching 1:1 70 patients who underwent LRP+ePLND (2004-2009) to 70 who underwent RAR P+ePLND (2010-2014). All patients presented with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer according to D’Amico classification. Patients were retrospectively analyzed. Differences in pathologic characteristics and postoperative complications across the two groups were assessed using Wilcoxon Rank sum or χ2 Test.
RESULTS: LRP was associated with shorter OR times and decreased blood loss (P<0.001). However, in the robotic-assisted arm, more lymph nodes were retrieved (18 vs. 12; P<001). No significant difference in positive surgical margins was found across the two techniques (P=0.9). Lymphocele formation and prolonged lymphorrea were specifically addressed as complications, with no significant difference emerging from our analyses (P>0.74).
CONCLUSIONS: In this matched-pair analysis comparing patients with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer, a robotic-assisted approach was associated to a higher lymph node yield compared to conventional laparoscopy. However, this increase in node yield was balanced with longer OR times, increased blood loss, similar postoperative complications and similar oncologic outcomes. Larger and prospective studies in patients at high risk are necessary to validate these findings.


KEY WORDS: Lymph nodes - Laparoscopy - Prostatic neoplasms - Robotic surgical procedures

top of page

Publication History

Issue published online: December 22, 2016
Article first published online: November 10, 2016
Manuscript accepted: November 2, 2016
Manuscript revised: October 18, 2016
Manuscript received: August 16, 2016

Cite this article as

Albisinni S, Aoun F, Le Dinh D, Zanaty M, Hawaux E, Peltier A, et al. Comparing conventional laparoscopic to robotic-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection in men with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer: a matched-pair analysis. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2017;69:101-7. Doi: 10.23736/S0393-2249.16.02799-5

Corresponding author e-mail

albisinni.simone@gmail.com