Extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Comparison with transperitoneal technique

Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis

We aim to evaluate the differences in peri-operative characteristics, surgical complications, and oncological and functional control between the extraperitoneal RARP (EP-RARP) and transperitoneal RARP (TP-RARP). A comprehensive database search was performed up to March 2021 for eligible studies comparing outcomes between EP-RARP versus TP-RARP. This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO. A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was performed to control for heterogeneity and risk of bias. A total of 16 studies were included with 3897 patients, including 2201 (56.5%) EP-RARPs and 1696 (43.5%) TP-RARPs. When compared to TP-RARP, EP-RARP offers faster operative time (MD - 14.4 min; 95% CI - 26.3, - 2.3), decreased length of post-operative stay (MD - 0.9 days, 95% CI - 1.3, - 0.4), and decreased rates of post-operative ileus (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1, 0.7) and inguinal hernia formation (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1, 0.5). There were no significant differences in total complications, estimated blood loss, positive surgical margins, or continence at 6 months. In this review, EP-RARP delivered similar oncological and functional outcomes, while also offering faster operative time, decreased length of post-operative stay, and decreased rates of post-operative ileus and inguinal hernia formation when compared to TP-RARP. These findings provide evidence-based data for surgical approach optimization and prompts future research to examine whether these findings hold true with recent advances in single-port RARP and outpatient RARP.

Critical appraisal of literature comparing minimally invasive extraperitoneal and transperitoneal radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

To systematically review studies comparing extraperitoneal (E-RP) and transperitoneal minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (T-RP).

Methods

The systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in September 2015. Several databases were searched including Medline and Scopus. Only studies comparing E-RP and T-RP (either laparoscopic or robot-assisted approach) were evaluated. The follow-up of the included patients had to be ≥6 months.

Results

In all, 1256 records were identified after the initial database search. Of these 20 studies (2580 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The hospital stay was significantly lower in the E-RP cohort, with a mean difference of −0.30 days (95% confidence interval [CI] −0.35, −0.24) for the laparoscopic group and 1.09 days (95% CI −1.47, −0.70) for the robotic group (P < 0.001). Early continence rates favoured the E-RP group, although this was statistically significant only in the laparoscopic group (odds ratio [OR] 2.52, 95% CI 1.72, 3.70; P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the E-RP and T-RP cohorts for 12-month continence rates for both the laparoscopic (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.89, 2.69; P = 0.12) and robotic groups (OR 3.03, 95% CI 0.54, 16.85; P = 0.21). The overall complication and ileus rates were significantly lower in the E-RP cohort for both the laparoscopic and robotic groups. The symptomatic lymphocele rate favoured the T-RP cohort, although this was statistically significant only in the laparoscopic group (OR 8.69, 95% CI 1.60, 47.17; P = 0.01).

Conclusion

This review suggests that the extraperitoneal approach is associated with a shorter hospital stay, lower overall complication rate, and earlier return to continence when compared to the transperitoneal approach. The transperitoneal approach has a lower lymphocele rate.