Contemporary Management of Hemorrhage After Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE\nTo describe contemporary management and outcomes of patients experiencing postoperative hemorrhage after minimally invasive radical prostatectomy.\n\n\nMATERIALS AND METHODS\nWe retrospectively analyzed data from patients who underwent minimally invasive radical prostatectomy at our institution between January 2010 and January 2017. Clinically significant hemorrhage was defined as a decrease in hemoglobin of ≥30% or 4 g/dL from preoperative to 4 or 14 hours postoperative measurement, receiving a blood transfusion within 30 days, or undergoing a secondary procedure to control bleeding. Patients were analyzed in 3 groups: (1) serially monitored only, (2) received a blood transfusion, and (3) underwent a secondary procedure. Outcomes included imaging studies performed, length of stay, emergency room visits, hospital readmissions, complication rates, and functional outcomes.\n\n\nRESULTS\nOf 3749 men, 4% (151/3749) had clinically significant hemorrhage, 1.6% (60/3749) received a transfusion; 0.32% (12/3749) underwent a secondary procedure to control bleeding. In a 30-day composite outcome, increased healthcare utilization (emergency room visit, readmission, or Grade ≥3 complications), was seen in 25% of the serial monitoring group, 65% of the transfusion group, and 100% in the secondary procedure group. This rate in 3598 men without hemorrhage was 12.5%. One-year erectile function was poorest in men who underwent a secondary procedure. Urinary functional outcomes were similar in the 3 groups.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nMost patients experiencing clinically significant hemorrhage will stabilize without transfusion, and a very small fraction require secondary intervention. Patients experiencing milder bleeding events utilized additional healthcare resources at approximately twice the rate of those who did not, warranting appropriate counseling and postoperative monitoring.