# Impact of Low- Versus Standard-Pressure Pneumoperitoneum on Postoperative Recovery in Patients with Obesity Undergoing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study

## TL;DR

This study finds that using low-pressure gas during robot-assisted prostate surgery improves recovery in obese patients without increasing complications.

## Contribution

The study evaluates the effectiveness of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum in obese patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

## Key findings

- Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum significantly improved postoperative recovery scores in obese patients.
- Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum increased operative time and blood loss but did not increase complications.
- There were no differences in hospital stay or surgical outcomes between the two groups.

## Abstract

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.