Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Comparison of operative and postoperative results, and complications between the extraperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches

From: New steps of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using the extraperitoneal approach: a propensity-score matched comparison between extraperitoneal and transperitoneal approach in Japanese patients

Variables EP approach TP approach p–Value
Patients (n) 190 190  
Operative time (min) 254.5 ± 42.5 (144–464) 225.8 ± 44.0 (131–410) <0.01
Robot console time (min) 180.5 ± 31.7 (98–304) 175.4 ± 40.9 (98–351) 0.07
Anastomosis time (min) 30.3 ± 11.7 (7–73) 28.0 ± 10.0 (8–66) 0.09
Blood loss (mL) 139.9 ± 118.7 (5–800) 184.9 ± 195.8 (0–1485) 0.03
Prostate weight (g) 46.0 ± 13.1 (22–96) 44.8 ± 16.4 (8–132) 0.13
Indwelling urethral catheter (days) 5.6 ± 1.7 (4–16) 7.7 ± 3.7 (4–33) <0.01
Pathological Gleason score (%)    0.02
 2–6 24 (12.6) 21 (11.1)  
 7 118 (62.1) 142 (74.7)  
 8–10 54 (28.4) 27 (14.2)  
Pathological stage (%)    <0.01
 pT2 121 (63.7) 153 (80.5)  
 pT3 69 (36.3) 37 (19.5)  
Positive surgical margin (%)
 pT2 13 (10.7) 30 (19.6) 0.09
 pT3 37 (53.6) 21 (56.8) 0.76
Lymphadenectomy (%) 63 (33.2) 71 (37.4) 0.22
Continence (%) 173 (91.1) 170 (89.5) 0.60
Complications (%)
 Anastomosis stenosis 2 (1.1) 5 (2.6) 0.20
 Blood transfusion 0 (0.0) 1 (0.5) 0.32
 Colorectal injury 0 (0.0) 2 (1.1) 0.16
 Conversion to open surgery 0 (0.0) 1 (0.5) 0.32
 Ileus 0 (0.0) 2 (1.1) 0.16
 Indirect inguinal hernia 2 (1.1) 14 (7.4) <0.01
 Symptomatic lymphocele 0 (0.0) 1 (0.5) 0.32
  1. EP extraperitoneal, TP transperitoneal