Is a Drain Needed After Robotic Radical Prostatectomy With or Without Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection? Results of a Single-Center Randomized Clinical Trial.

Journal: Journal of endourology
Published Date:

Abstract

To investigate by means of a randomized clinical trial the safety of no drain in the pelvic cavity after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with or without extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND). From May to December 2016, 112 consecutive patients who underwent RARP with or without ePLND were prospectively randomized into a control group (CG) and study group (SG). In the CG, a drain was placed in the pelvic cavity at the end of surgery and removed after 24 hours. The trial was designed to assess noninferiority. The primary endpoint was evaluated as complication rates graded by the Clavien-Dindo score (CDS). Secondary endpoints included length of hospital stay (LOHS) and hospital readmission (RAD). At final analysis, 56 patients were in the CG and 54 belonged to the SG. The groups were homogenous for all preoperative and perioperative variables and did not show any difference in CDS complication rates (28.9% in the CG and 20.4% in the SG;  = 0.254), LOHS (on average 4 days in each group;  = 0.689), and RAD rates (3.6% in the CG and 3.7% in the SG;  = 0.970). In a modern cohort of patients who underwent RARP with or without ePLND, a single-center randomized controlled trial showed that no-drain policy is equivalent to drain after RARP in terms of CDS complication rate, LOHS, and RAD rate. The option of placing a postoperative drain for the first 24 hours could be considered in cases of difficult urethrovesical anastomosis with uncertain watertightness.

Authors

  • Antonio B Porcaro
    Department of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.
  • Salvatore Siracusano
    Department of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.
  • Leonardo Bizzotto
    Department of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.
  • Marco Sebben
    Department of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.
  • Giovanni E Cacciamani
    USC Institute of Urology, Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA - giovanni.cacciamani@med.usc.edu.
  • Nicolò de Luyk
    Department of Urology, University Hospital of Verona, Verona, Italy.
  • Paolo Corsi
    Department of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.
  • Alessandro Tafuri
    Department of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.
  • Tania Processali
    Department of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.
  • Daniele Mattevi
    Department of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.
  • Maria A Cerruto
    Department of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.
  • Matteo Brunelli
    Department of Pathology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.
  • Giovanni Novella
    Department of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.
  • Vincenzo De Marco
    Department of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.
  • Walter Artibani
    Urology Clinic, A.O.U.I. Verona, Verona, Italy.