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.
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.
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.
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
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
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):40–48
Binder J, Kramer W (2001) Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 87(4):408–410
Mohiuddin K, Swanson SJ (2013) Maximizing the benefit of minimally invasive surgery. J Surg Oncol 108(5):315–319
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):245–252
ASA Physical Status Classification System. https://www.asahq.org/standards-and-guidelines/asa-physical-status-classification-system. Accessed 20 05 2019
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):373–383
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):317–324
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):333–340
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):176–187
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):259–284
Hartrick CT, Kovan JP, Shapiro S (2003) The numeric rating scale for clinical pain measurement: a ratio measure? Pain Pract 3(4):310–316
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):1073–1093
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):544–548
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):69–75
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
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):845–853
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):1057–1066
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 123:1031–1040
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)
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):322–328
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):569–572
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Knipper, S., Hagedorn, M., Sadat-Khonsari, M. et al. Comparison of intra- and postoperative analgesia and pain perception in robot-assisted vs. open radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 38, 1451–1457 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02938-w
- Prostate cancer
- Morphine equivalent
- Numeric rating scale
- Perioperative pain