Key result
Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum linked to ~7-point higher day-30 QoR-15 scores vs standard pressure in obesity.
Why the study?
The efficacy of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with obesity was unclear.
Does low-pressure pneumoperitoneum improve postoperative recovery in patients with obesity undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy?
Cohort (n=130)
Does low-pressure pneumoperitoneum improve postoperative recovery in patients with obesity undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy?
Absolute Event Rate: 132.88% vs 125.61%
p-value: p=<0.001
Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum improves postoperative recovery in patients with obesity undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, despite longer operative times and higher blood loss.
Should not yet change practice for pneumoperitoneum pressure in obese RARP; hypothesis-generating pending randomized confirmation.
Background and Objectives: Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (PP) during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has been shown to improve postoperative recovery in patients with non-obesity. However, its efficacy in individuals with obesity remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate postoperative outcomes in patients with obesity undergoing RARP with low-pressure (7 mmHg) versus standard-pressure (12 mmHg) PP. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, 130 patients with obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m2) undergoing RARP were divided into low-pressure (n = 60) and standard-pressure (n = 70) groups. Postoperative recovery was assessed using the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) questionnaire on postoperative days (POD) 1, 3, and 30. Secondary outcomes included surgical workspace (SWS) scores, operative time, blood loss, intraoperative and postoperative complications, hospital stay, and pathological results. ANCOVA and chi-square tests were used for analysis. Results: QoR-15 scores were significantly higher in the low-pressure group on POD1 (123.58 vs. 111.41), POD3 (128.37 vs. 116.41), and POD30 (132.88 vs. 125.61; p < 0.001). Operative time (98.5 vs. 71.57 min; p < 0.001) and blood loss (129 vs. 97.07 mL; p = 0.039) were higher in the low-pressure group. SWS scores were lower in the low-pressure group (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between groups in complication rates, hospital stay, or positive surgical margins. Conclusions: In patients with obesity undergoing RARP, low-pressure PP improves postoperative recovery without increasing complications. Despite longer operative times and higher blood loss, this approach is a viable option to enhance recovery in this population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sobay et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Obesity undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (n=130). Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum vs. Standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum (12 mmHg) was evaluated on Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) score on postoperative day 30 (p=<0.001). Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum improved Quality of Recovery-15 scores on postoperative day 30 compared to standard pressure (132.88 vs. 125.61; p<0.001) in patients with obesity.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: