Intraoperative blood loss and transfusion requirements for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy
- PMID: 16461085
- DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.08.029
Intraoperative blood loss and transfusion requirements for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy
Abstract
Objectives: To compare intraoperative blood loss, perioperative hematocrit, and transfusion requirements in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) by a single surgeon.
Methods: During a 14-month period, 279 patients with localized carcinoma of the prostate were prospectively enrolled in this comparative study. The decision of which surgical approach to use was by patient choice. Of the 279 patients, 176 underwent RALP and 103 underwent RRP. The serum hematocrit was obtained preoperatively and 24 hours postoperatively in all patients. The intraoperative blood loss was recorded, and transfusion requirements were noted.
Results: Patients in the RALP group had significantly less intraoperative blood loss compared with the RRP group (mean 191 mL versus 664 mL, P < 0.001). Additionally, the difference in the discharge hematocrit (36.8% versus 32.8%, P < 0.001) and the mean perioperative change in hematocrit (8.0% decrease versus 10.7% decrease, P < 0.001) were significant between the RALP and RRP groups, respectively. Three patients in the RRP group (2.9%) and one in the RALP group (0.5%) required transfusion of blood products (P = 0.14).
Conclusions: The results of this study have shown that RALP is associated with less intraoperative bleeding than RRP, and patients undergoing RALP have a greater serum hematocrit at hospital discharge. The lack of a statistically significant difference in blood transfusion was partially attributable to the low transfusion rate in both groups in this series.
Similar articles
-
A retrospective comparison of anesthetic management of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy.J Clin Anesth. 2009 Aug;21(5):322-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2008.09.005. Epub 2009 Aug 22. J Clin Anesth. 2009. PMID: 19700296
-
Comparison of transfusion requirements between open and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.BJU Int. 2010 Oct;106(7):1036-40. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09233.x. Epub 2010 Feb 11. BJU Int. 2010. PMID: 20151960
-
Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of postoperative pain.J Urol. 2005 Sep;174(3):912-4; discussion 914. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000169455.25510.ff. J Urol. 2005. PMID: 16093986 Clinical Trial.
-
Radical prostatectomy: a comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic techniques.Can J Urol. 2006 Feb;13 Suppl 1:56-61. Can J Urol. 2006. PMID: 16526984 Review.
-
Delayed intraoperative hydration limits blood loss during radical retropubic prostatectomy.Urology. 2004 Oct;64(4):712-6. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.05.006. Urology. 2004. PMID: 15491707 Review.
Cited by
-
Athermal nerve sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: initial experience with microporous polysaccharide hemospheres as a topical hemostatic agent.World J Urol. 2013 Jun;31(3):523-7. doi: 10.1007/s00345-011-0815-8. Epub 2011 Dec 25. World J Urol. 2013. PMID: 22198725
-
New techniques and management options for localized prostate cancer.Rev Urol. 2006;8 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S22-9. Rev Urol. 2006. PMID: 17021638 Free PMC article.
-
Age-stratified outcomes after robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.J Robot Surg. 2007;1(2):125-32. doi: 10.1007/s11701-007-0009-y. Epub 2007 Jan 24. J Robot Surg. 2007. PMID: 25484948 Free PMC article.
-
Reducing blood loss in open radical retropubic prostatectomy with prophylactic periprostatic sutures.BJU Int. 2010 Jun;105(12):1650-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.09034.x. Epub 2009 Nov 3. BJU Int. 2010. PMID: 19888968 Free PMC article.
-
Urological procedures in Central Europe and the current reality based on the national registries of Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland (2012 status).Cent European J Urol. 2016;69(4):327-333. doi: 10.5173/ceju.2016.886. Epub 2016 Nov 30. Cent European J Urol. 2016. PMID: 28127446 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical