Reduction in postoperative ileus rates utilizing lower pressure pneumoperitoneum in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy

  • Matthew RohloffEmail author
  • Arman Cicic
  • Cody Christensen
  • Thomas K. Maatman
  • Jeffrey Lindberg
  • Thomas J. Maatman
Original Article


Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is the most commonly performed surgery for prostate cancer. This is a study comparing differences in postoperative outcomes between pneumoperitoneum pressures of 15 mmHg and 12 mmHg. Retrospective chart review was performed on 400 patients undergoing RARP over a 5 year period. A combination of Fisher’s exact test and ANOVA were utilized for statistical analysis. Age, BMI, Gleason score, positive margin rate, complication rates, blood loss, and operative times were similar in both groups. Length of stay and postoperative ileus rates were significantly less in the 12 mmHg group (p < 0.05). RARP can be safely performed utilizing a lower pressure pneumoperitoneum. Decreasing insufflation pressures from 15 to 12 mmHg can further lead to decreased rates of postoperative ileus.


Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum Standard pressure pneumoperitoneum Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy Postoperative ileus Prostate cancer Robotic surgery 



Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum


Standard pressure pneumoperitoneum


Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy


Postoperative ileus


Body mass index


Length of stay


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Lowrance WT, Eastham JA, Savage C et al (2012) Contemporary open and robotic radical prostatectomy practice patterns among urologists in the United States. J Urol 187(6):2087–2092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hsu RL, Kaye AD, Urman RD (2013) Anesthetic challenges in robotic-assisted urologic surgery. Rev Urol 15(4):178–184Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Christensen CR, Maatman TK, Maatman TJ, Tran TT (2016) Examining clinical outcomes utilizing low-pressure pneumoperitoneum during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Robot Surg 10(3):215–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vather R, Trivedi S, Bissett I (2013) Defining postoperative ileus: results of a systematic review and global survey. J Gastrointest Surg 17(5):962–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gurusamy KS, Vaughan J, Davidson BR (2014) Low pressure versus standard pressure pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD006930Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Iyer S, Saunders WB, Stemkowski S (2009) Economic burden of postoperative ileus associated with colectomy in the United States. J Manag Care Pharm 15(6):485–494Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Asgeirsson T, El-badawi KI, Mahmood A, Barletta J, Luchtefeld M, Senagore AJ (2010) Postoperative ileus: it costs more than you expect. J Am Coll Surg 210(2):228–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ozdemir AT, Altinova S, Koyuncu H, Serefoglu EC, Cimen IH, Balbay DM (2014) The incidence of postoperative ileus in patients who underwent robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. Cent Eur J Urol 67(1):19–24Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moschini M, Morlacco A, Kwon E, Rangel LJ, Karnes RJ (2017) Treatment of M1a/M1b prostate cancer with or without radical prostatectomy at diagnosis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 20(1):117–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lubawski J, Saclarides T (2008) Postoperative ileus: strategies for reduction. Ther Clin Risk Manag 4(5):913–917Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schilling MK, Redaelli C, Krähenbühl L, Signer C, Büchler MW (1997) Splanchnic microcirculatory changes during CO2 laparoscopy. J Am Coll Surg 184(4):378–382Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urological SurgeryMetro Health: University of Michigan HealthGrand RapidsUSA

Personalised recommendations