Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 Jan-Mar;14(1):1-5.
doi: 10.4293/108680810X12674612014266.

Intraoperative management of robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy

Daniel M Gainsburg  1 , David Wax, David L Reich, John R Carlucci, David B Samadi
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Intraoperative management of robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy

Daniel M Gainsburg et al. JSLS. 2010 Jan-Mar.

Abstract

Background and objectives: Minimally invasive surgery has been shown to decrease postoperative morbidity and length of stay for several laparoscopic procedures. We sought to retrospectively compare intraoperative surgical and anesthetic parameters, post-anesthetic care unit (PACU) length of stay, and hospital length of stay of patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RAP) versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy (ORP).

Methods: A retrospective investigation was performed using a urologic surgery database and an anesthesia electronic medical record. We queried information regarding 106 ORP patients from 2002 through 2007 and 575 RAP patients from 2007 through 2008.

Results: Patients in the RAP group compared with ORP patients had reductions in surgical time, anesthesia time, estimated blood loss, crystalloid administration, and PACU and hospital length of stays. Compared with ORP procedures, intraoperative respiratory rates, peak inspiratory pressures, and arterial pressures in RAP procedures were higher; tidal volumes and heart rates were decreased; but end-tidal carbon dioxide concentrations were not different. In the RAP group, intraoperative complications included severe bradycardia, corneal abrasions, and 2 patients required reintubation. Surgically, no rectal perforations were noted, and no operative mortalities occurred.

Conclusions: Our data demonstrate the safety and efficacy of RAP due to a combination of surgical and anesthetic factors.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Martínez-Salamanca JI, Romero Otero J. Critical comparative analysis between open, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: perioperative morbidity and oncological results (Part I). Arch Esp Urol. 2007;60(7):755–765 - PubMed
    1. Okabe T, Kim C, Yamanashi Y, Sakamoto A. Anesthesia management for laparoscopic prostatectomy and open prostatectomy. Masui. 2007;56(12):1404–1407 Japanese - PubMed
    1. Danic MJ, Chow C, Alexander G, et al. Anesthesia considerations for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a review of 1,500 cases. J Robotic Surg. 2007;1(2):119–123 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Phong SN, Koh LD. Anaesthesia for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: considerations for laparoscopy in the Trendelenburg position. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2007;35(2):281–285 - PubMed
    1. Nelson B, Kaufman M, Broughton G, et al. Comparison of length of hospital stay between radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2007;177(3):929–931 - PubMed

Publication types