Adequacy of lymphadenectomy among men undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
Version of Record online: 22 JUN 2009
© 2009 THE AUTHORS. JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2009 BJU INTERNATIONAL
Volume 105, Issue 1, pages 88–92, January 2010
How to Cite
Cooperberg, M. R., Kane, C. J., Cowan, J. E. and Carroll, P. R. (2010), Adequacy of lymphadenectomy among men undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU International, 105: 88–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08699.x
- Issue online: 16 DEC 2009
- Version of Record online: 22 JUN 2009
- Accepted for publication 8 April 2009
- prostate neoplasms;
Study Type – Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4
To compare rates of lymph node dissection (LND) and nodal yields between patients treated with open radical retropubic prostatectomy (ORRP) and robot-assisted RRP (RARP) in a contemporary single-institution series.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Data from 1278 consecutive patients (716 ORRP and 562 RARP) from one institution were accrued prospectively in an institutional database, and the data analysed retrospectively. Disease risk was assessed using the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score. The likelihood of LND, nodal yield, and likelihood of node positivity were compared between ORRP and RARP.
Of patients treated with ORRP and RARP, 47.8% and 31.8% had LND, respectively, with more receiving LND over time in both surgical approaches. Men undergoing LND had a higher disease risk than those not undergoing LND (mean CAPRA score 4.3 vs 2.1, P < 0.01), and there was no difference in risk between those undergoing ORRP or RARP (mean CAPRA score 3.0 vs 2.9, P = 0.29). The mean (sd) nodal yield was 14.4 (8.7) for ORRP and 9.3 (5.4) for RARP (P < 0.01). Among patients undergoing LND, 5.8% of ORRP and 4.1% of RARP patients had positive nodes (P < 0.01).
The indications for LND and template dissection should be the same regardless of surgical approach. The nodal yield was adequate using both approaches; the yield was higher among ORRP than RARP patients, but the difference was not large, and is less remarkable than the wide variation in yield within each approach. Several factors might explain this variation.