Skip to main content

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