Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy and its complications – own experience from the first 300 procedures
Authors:
Květoslav Novák 1; Petr Macek 1; Michael Vraný 2; Michael Pešl 1; Zuzana Vaľová 1; Jan Dvořáček 1; Tomáš Hanuš 1
Authors place of work:
Urologická klinika 1. LF UK a VFN, Praha
1; Chirurgické oddělení Nemocnice Jablonec nad Nisou
2
Published in the journal:
Ces Urol 2014; 18(2): 119-127
Category:
Original article
Summary
Goal of study:
The goal of the study was to evaluate complications in a group of patients with prostate carcinoma (PC) surgically treated by endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERP) at our department.
Method:
We performed this type of surgery exclusively using the extraperitoneal approach as an anterograde procedure. Five chronologically arranged groups of patients were compared (A-36, B-34, C-70, D-77, E-83).
Results:
From 2/2008 to 6/2013 we performed 300 EERP in patients with a BMI up to 45, age 48–77 (ø 64) years, PSA 0.71–34.9 (ø 8,1) ng/ml. Specimen weight was 15–185 (ø 56) g. Average duration of the procedure in individual groups were: A – 265 min, B – 220 min, C – 200 min, D – 142 min, E – 129 min, blood loss > 1000 ml was seen in 19 (53%) patients in group A, 6 (18%) in B, 3 (4%) in C, 6 (8%) in D in, and 2 (3%) in E, blood substitution was need in only 9 (3%) patients. None of the procedures were converted to open, surgical revision for bleeding the same day was indicated in 2 (0.7%). Rectal injuries occurred in 6 (2%) procedures. These were recognized immediately and sutured in 4 (all healed), vesicorectal fistula developed in 2 (both healed after late reconstruction). Other major complications were published.
Conclusion:
EERP is a minimally invasive surgical procedure recommended in patients with localized PC. Perioperative outcomes improved as the number of procedures increased. Frequency of complications was low.
Key words:
endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy, complications.
Zdroje
1. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, et al. Guidelines on Prostate Cancer (2013 Edition): http//uroweb.org
2. Schuessler WW, Schulman P, Clayman R, Kavoussi L. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Initial short-term experience. Urology 1997; 50: 854–857.
3. Guillonneau B., Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: The Monsouris experience. J Urol 2000; 163: 418–422.
4. Bollens R, Vanden Bossche M, Rhoumeguere T, et al. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: results after 50 cases. Eur Urol 2001; 40: 65–69.
5. Stolzenburg JU, Do M, Rabenalt R, et al. Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy : initial expeerince after 70 procedures. J Urol 2003; 169: 2066–2071.
6. Rassweiler J, Hruza M, Teber D, et al. Laparoscopic and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy – critical analysis of the results. Eur Urol 2006; 49: 612–624.
7. Stolzenburg JU, Gettman MT, Liatsikos EN. Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer Verlag 2007; 195.
8. Rassweiler J, Sentker L, Seemenn O, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique: an analysis of the first 180 cases. J Urol 2001; 160: 201–208.
9. Chang CM, Moon D, Gianduzzo TR, et al. The impact of prostate size in laparoscopic radical prostaectomy. Eur Urol 2005; 48: 285–290.
10. Van Velhoeven RF, Ahlering TE, Peltier A, et al. Technique for laparoscopic running urethrovesical anastomosis:the single knot method. Urology 2003; 61: 699–702.
11. Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy:A systematic Review and cumulative analysis of comparative studie. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 1037–1063.
12. Rabbani F, Yunis L, Pinochet R, et al. Comprehensive standardised report of complications of retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2010; 57: 371–386.
13. Tyritzis S, Katafigiotis I, Constantinides C. All you need to know about urethrovesical anastomotic urinary leakage following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2012; 188: 369–376.
14. Hruza M, Weiss H, Giovannalberto P, et al. Complications in 2200 consecutive laparoscopic radical prostatectomies: standardised evaluation and analysis of learning curves. Eur Urol 2010; 58: 731–733.
15. Touijer K, Guillonneau B. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A critical analysis of surgical quality. Eur Urol 2006; 46: 625–632.
16. Prabhu V, Sivarajan G, Taksler G, et al. Long-term continence outcomes in men undergoing radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 52–57.
17. Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch D, et al. Positive surgical mergin and preoperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparin, retropubic, laparoscopic and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 1–15.
18. Paul A, Ploussard G, Nicolaiew N, et al. Oncologic outcome after extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Midterm follow-up of 1115 procedures. Eur Urol 2010; 57: 267–273.
Štítky
Paediatric urologist Nephrology UrologyČlánok vyšiel v časopise
Czech Urology
2014 Číslo 2
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Intravesical therapy of urinary bladder tumours
- Aneurysmal cyst of the adrenal gland
- Classification of the penile intraepithelial neoplasias preceding invasive squamous cell carcinomas and their analogy with precancers of vulvar squamous cell carcinoma
- „Burned-out“ tumour of a testis with metastasis to retroperitoneal lymph node