Background: “Three-port” laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) has been applied as a substitution for the conventional 4- to 5-port LRP to treat prostate cancer (PCa) patients in our institution. Objective: To evaluate the learning curve of an innovative “3-port” LRP for PCa patients. Methods: 206 patients who received “3-port” LRP were retrospectively reviewed between January 2016 and December 2019 at our institution. According to the different years of operations performed, all of the patients were divided into group A (No. 1–50), group B (No. 51–107), group C (No. 108–160), and group D (No. 161–206). A learning curve was depicted by analyzing the parameters of operative time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), hospitalization, and drainage indwelling days. Results: All groups were comparable with regard to the preoperative characteristics (p > 0.05). The sloping learning curve for the surgeon showed that OT and EBL were strongly correlated with an accumulated experience when compared between group A and the other groups (p < 0.05), denoting that the surgical skill of the “3-port” LRP can be fully mastered after around 50 cases. Although no significant correlation with additional experience was observed in the hospitalization and drainage indwelling days among groups, a tendency towards less hospitalization and drainage indwelling days was still reflected. Conclusions: Our 4-year analysis based on a single-center experience exhibits that the innovative “3-port” LRP appears to be favorable with decreasing tendency in OT and EBL with experience accumulation. In view of its advantage of perioperative parameters with an evidently improved learning curve, it should be recommended in the clinical practice!

1.
Baade
PD
,
Youlden
DR
,
Krnjacki
LJ
.
International epidemiology of prostate cancer: geographical distribution and secular trends
.
Mol Nutr Food Res
.
2009
;
53
(
2
):
171
84
. .
2.
Allan
C
,
IIic
D
.
Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: a systematic review
.
Urol Int
.
2015
;
96
:
373
8
.
3.
Montorsi
F
,
Wilson
TG
,
Rosen
RC
,
Ahlering
TE
,
Artibani
W
,
Carroll
PR
, et al.
Best practices in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: recommendations of the Pasadena consensus
.
Panel Eur Urol
.
2012
;
62
:
368
81
.
4.
Schroeck
FR
,
Krupski
TL
,
Sun
L
,
Albala
DM
,
Price
MM
,
Polascik
TJ
, et al.
Satisfaction and regret after open retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
.
Eur Urol
.
2008
;
54
(
4
):
785
93
. .
5.
Sugihara
T
,
Yasunaga
H
,
Horiguchi
H
,
Matsui
H
,
Fujimura
T
,
Nishimatsu
H
, et al.
Robot-assisted versus other types of radical prostatectomy: population-based safety and cost comparison in Japan, 2012–2013
.
Cancer Sci
.
2014
;
105
:
1421
6
.
6.
Bolenz
C
,
Freedland
SJ
,
Hollenbeck
BK
,
Lotan
Y
,
Lowrance
WT
,
Nelson
JB
, et al.
Costs of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review
.
Eur Urol
.
2014
;
65
(
2
):
316
24
. .
7.
Sundram
M
.
Asian robotic experience
.
Urol Oncol
.
2010
;
28
(
6
):
677
81
. .
8.
Koutlidis
N
,
Mourey
E
,
Champigneulle
J
,
Mangin
P
,
Cormier
L
.
Robot-assisted or pure laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: what is the optimal procedure for the surgical margins? A single center experience
.
Int J Urol
.
2012
;
19
(
12
):
1076
81
. .
9.
Schuessler
WW
,
Kavoussi
LR
,
Clayman
RV
.
Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial case report
.
J Urol
.
1992
;
147
:
246A
.
10.
Hu
JC
,
Wang
Q
,
Pashos
CL
,
Lipsitz
SR
,
Keating
NL
.
Utilization and outcomes of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy
.
J Clin Oncol
.
2008
;
26
(
14
):
2278
84
. .
11.
Gao
Y
,
Xu
DF
,
Liu
YS
,
Cui
XG
,
Che
JP
,
Yao
YC
, et al.
Single plus one port laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a report of 8 cases in one center
.
Chin Med J
.
2011
;
124
(
10
):
1580
2
.
12.
Delongchamps
NB
,
Belas
O
,
Saighi
D
,
Zerbib
M
,
Peyromaure
M
.
Prospective comparison of scar-related satisfaction and quality of life after laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: no differences from patients’ point of view
.
World J Urol
.
2013
;
31
:
389
93
.
13.
Gozen
AS
,
Akin
Y
,
Akgul
M
,
Yazici
C
,
Klein
J
,
Rassweiler
J
.
A novel practical trocar placement technique for extraperitoneal laparoscopic and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in patients with lower midline abdominal incisions
.
J Endourol
.
2014
;
24
:
417
21
.
14.
Secin
FP
,
Jiborn
T
,
Bjartell
AS
,
Fournier
G
,
Salomon
L
,
Abbou
CC
, et al.
Multi-institutional study of symptomatic deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in prostate cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
.
Eur Urol
.
2008
;
53
(
1
):
134
45
. .
15.
Patel
VR
,
Palmer
KJ
,
Coughlin
G
,
Samavedi
S
.
Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: perioperative outcomes of 1500 cases
.
J Endourol
.
2008
;
22
:
2299
306
.
16.
Badani
KK
,
Kaul
S
,
Menon
M
.
Evolution of robotic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 2766 procedures
.
Cancer
.
2007
;
110
(
9
):
1951
8
. .
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.