67-6

29/93

Satoru MUTO2), Yoshiro SAKAMOTO1), Shigeo HORIE2)1)Department of Urology, Juntendo University Nerima Hospital, Tokyo, Japan2)Department of Urology, Juntendo University, Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, JapanCorresponding author: Kosuke KitamuraDepartment of Urology Juntendo University, Nerima Hospital3-1-10 Takanodai, Nerima-ku, Tokyo, Japan 177-8521TEL: +81-3-5923-3111　FAX: +81-3-5923-3217　E-mail: kkitamu@juntendo.ac.jp〔Received　Jul. 12, 2021〕〔Accepted　Sep. 13, 2021〕J-STAGE Advance published date: Nov. 12, 2021Copyright © 2021 The Juntendo Medical Society. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original source is properly credited. doi: 10.14789/jmj.JMJ21-0010-OAObjective: The safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compared with retropubic radical prostatectomy(RRP) is debated. As a result it is becoming the most common approach for prostate cancer surgery in the world. We examined whether the surgical results would be improved compared to RRP at a single facility where RARP is newly performed.Patients: The subjects were 81 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer at Juntendo University Nerima Hospital from March 2017 to December 2020.Methods: Perioperative factors analyzed in this study included the total operative time, estimated blood loss(EBL), complication and hospitalization. The recovery of urinary continence (UC) was either safety-pad only or pad-free. Oncological outcomes were assessed by surgical margin status.Results: Patients underwent RARP have the higher level of initial-PSA. But there was no significant difference on age, BMI and prostate volume between the RARP and RRP group. Perioperative EBL was less and the operative time and the length of hospital stay was shorter in the RARP group. Our study evaluating RARP and RRP reported positive surgical margins (PSM) rates. The results showed a significant difference with higher PSM rates in RRP group. Mean time to recovery of UC was no significantly difference among the two groups; 8 months in RRP group, 7 months in RARP group.Conclusions: The newly introduced RARP confirmed shorter operative time, lower EBL, shorter length of hospital stay, and fewer complications, demonstrating that RARP is less invasive than RRP.Key words: prostate cancer, robot-assisted surgery, radical prostatectomyJuntendo Medical Journal2021. 67(6), 537-541Original ArticlesInitial Experience of Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy in Juntendo Nerima HospitalIntroductionProstate cancer (PC) is a major disease affecting men worldwide, and radical prostatectomy (RP) is the definitive treatment for localised prostate cancer. However, open retropubic radical prosta-tectomy (RRP) is associated with higher overall complications, loss (EBL), wound infections. In recent years, robot-as-sisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) has minimized EBL and invasion, which has made it possible to accelerate postoperative recovery. In including estimated blood addition to cancer control, better results have been reported for functional postoperative recovery such as continence and electric function than conventional RRP.1, 2) A population-based analysis comparing RARP and RRP procedures concluded that men who underwent RARP had significantly less 30-day complications, blood transfusions, and shortened length of stay.3) As a result it is becoming the most common approach for prostate cancer surgery in the world.4) We examined whether the surgical results would be improved compared to RRP at a single facility where RARP is newly 537Kosuke KITAMURA1), Tomoki KIMURA1), Hiroki KOYASU1), Fumitaka SHIMIZU2),