Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Comparison of outcomes of the extraperitoneal approach according to the extent of surgical experience

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

  EP approach  
Variables 1–100 101–200 p–Value
Patients (n) 82 82  
Operative time (min) 258.6 ± 40.5 244.1 ± 43.2 <0.01
Robot console time (min) 183.5 ± 30.9 169.9 ± 26.2 <0.01
Anastomosis time (min) 33.1 ± 10.5 22.9 ± 7.7 <0.01
Blood loss (mL) 157.3 ± 116.6 104.8 ± 95.7 <0.01
Prostate weight (g) 46.3 ± 11.6 46.7 ± 14.4 0.93
Indwelling urethral catheter (days) 5.2 ± 1.0 5.6 ± 1.6 0.20
Pathological Gleason score (%)    0.04
 2–6 14 (17.1) 4 (4.9)  
 7 48 (58.5) 55 (67.1)  
 8–10 20 (24.4) 23 (28.0)  
Pathological stage (%)    0.34
 pT2 53 (64.6) 47 (57.3)  
 pT3 29 (35.4) 35 (42.7)  
Positive srgical margin (%)
 pT2 6 (11.3) 2 (4.3) 0.15
 pT3 20 (69.0) 12 (34.3) <0.01
Lymphadenectomy (%) 26 (31.7) 31 (37.8) 0.25
Continence (%) 73 (89.0) 76 (92.7) 0.42
Complications (%)
 Indirect inguinal hernia 2 (2.4) 0 (0.0) 0.16
 Anastomosis stenosis 1 (1.2) 1 (1.2) 1.00
  1. EP extraperitoneal