Necessity of Pelvic Drain Placement after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Makita Noriyuki, Kubota Masashi, Murata Shiori, Suzuki Issei, Tohi Yoichiro, Sugino Yoshio, Inoue Koji, Kawakita Mutsushi

doi:10.14989/actauroljap_66_9_283

Sixty eight patients had robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) from January 2016 to April 2017 with estimated blood loss of less than 500 ml. We compared the postoperative complication rates and the length of hospital stay between 34 of these patients who had pelvic drain placement (PD group), and the remaining 34 patients who had no drain placement (ND group). The approach was intraperitoneal in 25 patients in each group. The PD and ND groups were comparable for age (69.5 vs 70 yrs, P=0.459), clinical Gleason Score (6/7/≧8) 2/17/15 vs 3/8/23 (P=0.077), clinical stage (1c/2/3) 3/25/6 vs 1/25/8 (p=0. 539), operative time (311 vs 309 min, P=0.868), and estimated blood loss (p=0.166). The PD group had significantly higher median PSA level than the ND group (8.01 vs 6.25 ng/ml, P=0.023). Incidence of 30- day overall complications in the PD group (35 events) was lower than that in the ND group (38 events). All complications were classified as Clavien Dindo grade I. The postoperative hospital stay was 8 days in the PD group and 7 days in the ND group, showing no prolongation in the ND group. Pelvic drainage may be omitted after RARP without increasing postoperative complications or prolonging the hospital stay.

Necessity of Pelvic Drain Placement after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Bibliographic Information

Search this article

Abstract

Journal

Keywords

Details 詳細情報について

Export

Report a problem