Advertisement

Comparison of intra- and postoperative analgesia and pain perception in robot-assisted vs. open radical prostatectomy

  • Sophie KnipperEmail author
  • Moritz Hagedorn
  • Maryam Sadat-Khonsari
  • Zhe Tian
  • Pierre I. Karakiewicz
  • Derya Tilki
  • Hans Heinzer
  • Uwe Michl
  • Thomas Steuber
  • Franziska von Breunig
  • Christian Zöllner
  • Markus Graefen
Original Article
  • 28 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

One of the advantages of minimally invasive surgery may be reduced postoperative pain and faster recovery. However, reliable comparisons of robot-assisted (RARP) vs. open radical prostatectomy (ORP) addressing perioperative pain regimen are scarce.

Methods

We identified 420 consecutive treated patients who underwent RARP (n = 254) vs. ORP (n = 166) for clinically localized prostate cancer in 2017. After 1:1 propensity score matching for age, body mass index, D’Amico risk classification and lymph node yield, intra- and postoperative pain medication doses, as well as pain perception expressed by the numeric rating scale were assessed in uni- and multivariable analyses.

Results

Median age was 64.9 years. Operation time was significantly shorter in ORP patients (155 vs. 175 min in RARP, p < 0.001). Overall, a median of 12.5 vs. 12 g of metamizol was administered in RARP vs. ORP patients (p = 0.2). Additionally, a median of 146.7 vs. 133.9 mg of morphine equivalent was administered in RARP vs. ORP patients (p < 0.001). The mean maximum pain perceived on day 0 was 3.2 vs. 3.6 in RARP vs. ORP patients (p = 0.1). It decreased within the following days, and again, no differences between the two groups were observed. All results were confirmed in multivariable analyses.

Conclusions

When comparing RARP vs. ORP, a small increase in perioperative morphine administration at RARP may be expected. However, when assessing pain perception, no differences were observed between the two groups. Moreover, mean maximum pain perceived was very low, which may reassure patients, who are counselled for radical prostatectomy.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Morphine equivalent Numeric rating scale Perioperative pain 

Notes

Author contributions

Protocol/project development: MG, SK. Data collection or management: MH, SK, MS-K. Data analysis: SK, ZT. Manuscript writing/editing: all authors

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

There was no external financial support for this study. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    European Association Urology (2019) European association of urology guidelines, 2019 edn. In: European Association of Urology Guidelines Office (ed) Presented at the EAU Annual Congress Barcelona 2019. European Association of Urology Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands. http://uroweb.org/guidelines/compilations-of-all-guidelines/. Accessed 20 June 2019
  2. 2.
    Schiffmann J, Larcher A, Sun M, Tian Z, Berdugo J, Leva I et al (2017) Differences in patient characteristics among men choosing open or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in contemporary practice—analysis of surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database. Urol Int 98(1):40–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Binder J, Kramer W (2001) Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 87(4):408–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mohiuddin K, Swanson SJ (2013) Maximizing the benefit of minimally invasive surgery. J Surg Oncol 108(5):315–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McCarthy M, Chang C-H, Pickard AS, Giobbie-Hurder A, Price DD, Jonasson O et al (2005) Visual analog scales for assessing surgical pain. J Am Coll Surg 201(2):245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ASA Physical Status Classification System. https://www.asahq.org/standards-and-guidelines/asa-physical-status-classification-system. Accessed 20 05 2019
  7. 7.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40(5):373–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Budäus L, Isbarn H, Schlomm T, Heinzer H, Haese A, Steuber T et al (2009) Current technique of open intrafascial nerve-sparing retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 56(2):317–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schlomm T, Tennstedt P, Huxhold C, Steuber T, Salomon G, Michl U et al (2012) Neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) increases nerve-sparing frequency and reduces positive surgical margins in open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience after 11,069 consecutive patients. Eur Urol 62(2):333–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Azhar RA, Bochner B, Catto J, Goh AC, Kelly J, Patel HD et al (2016) Enhanced recovery after urological surgery: a contemporary systematic review of outcomes, key elements, and research needs. Eur Urol 70(1):176–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gustafsson UO, Scott MJ, Schwenk W, Demartines N, Roulin D, Francis N et al (2013) Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS(®)) Society recommendations. World J Surg 37(2):259–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hartrick CT, Kovan JP, Shapiro S (2003) The numeric rating scale for clinical pain measurement: a ratio measure? Pain Pract 3(4):310–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF, Caraceni A, Hanks GW, Loge JH et al (2011) Studies comparing numerical rating scales, verbal rating scales, and visual analogue scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manag 41(6):1073–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Woldu SL, Weinberg AC, Bergman A, Shapiro EY, Korets R, Motamedinia P et al (2014) Pain and analgesic use after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 28(5):544–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schiffmann J, Haese A, Boehm K, Salomon G, Steuber T, Heinzer H et al (2017) Ten-year experience of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: the road from cherry-picking to standard procedure. Minerva Urol Nefrol 69(1):69–75Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Checcucci E, Amparore D, De Luca S, Autorino R, Fiori C, Porpiglia F (2019) Precision prostate cancer surgery: an overview of new technologies and techniques. Minerva Urol Nefrol.  https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03365-4 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ilic D, Evans SM, Allan CA, Jung JH, Murphy D, Frydenberg M (2018) Laparoscopic and robot-assisted vs open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review. BJU Int 121(6):845–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, Occhipinti S, Samaratunga H, Zajdlewicz L et al (2016) Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet Lond Engl 388(10049):1057–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haese A, Knipper S, Isbarn H, Heinzer H, Tilki D, Salomon G et al (2019) A comparative study of robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy in 10 790 men treated by highly trained surgeons for both procedures. BJU Int 123:1031–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Webster TM, Herrell SD, Chang SS, Cookson MS, Baumgartner RG, Anderson LW et al (2005) Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of postoperative pain. J Urol 174(3):912–914 (discussion 914) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    D’Alonzo RC, Gan TJ, Moul JW, Albala DM, Polascik TJ, Robertson CN et al (2009) A retrospective comparison of anesthetic management of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Clin Anesth 21(5):322–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tewari A, Peabody J, Sarle R, Balakrishnan G, Hemal A, Shrivastava A et al (2002) Technique of da Vinci robot-assisted anatomic radical prostatectomy. Urology 60(4):569–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sophie Knipper
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Moritz Hagedorn
    • 3
  • Maryam Sadat-Khonsari
    • 4
  • Zhe Tian
    • 2
  • Pierre I. Karakiewicz
    • 2
  • Derya Tilki
    • 1
    • 4
  • Hans Heinzer
    • 1
  • Uwe Michl
    • 1
  • Thomas Steuber
    • 1
  • Franziska von Breunig
    • 5
  • Christian Zöllner
    • 5
  • Markus Graefen
    • 1
  1. 1.Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer CenterUniversity Hospital Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of UrologyUniversity of Montreal Health CenterMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Department of AnesthesiologyAsklepios Klinik BarmbekHamburgGermany
  4. 4.Department of UrologyUniversity Hospital Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  5. 5.Department of AnesthesiologyUniversity Hospital Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations