Literature DB >> 11528175

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The Créteil experience.

A Hoznek1, L Salomon, L E Olsson, P Antiphon, F Saint, A Cicco, D Chopin, C C Abbou.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: In an effort to reduce the morbidity associated to radical prostatectomy, we implemented laparoscopic surgery to this advanced ablative and reconstructive procedure. In our study, we describe our operative technique and assess our results in terms of oncologic cure, continence and potency.
METHODS: 200 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. 66 of these patients were either referred, or operated during surgical demonstrations. Thus, complete evaluation is based on a homogeneous personal series of 134 patients and was performed by an independent clinical analyst. There were 91 T1 and 43 T2. We did not perform pelvic lymph node excision in 78 patients whose PSA was less than 10 ng/ml and the Gleason score of endorectal biopsies was below 7. The surgical procedure recapitulated the steps of traditional retropubic prostatectomy with one basic difference however: the first step of the technique consisted in a rectoprostatic cleavage, which was done transperitoneally. Except for the first 10 patients, the vesicourethral reconstruction was performed either with two hemi-circumferential or a single circumferential running suture.
RESULTS: All interventions were performed as planned, no conversions were necessary, and only 4 patients required blood transfusion. Operating time decreased with growing experience; after the first 20 patients the usual operating time was 3.5 h without and 4 h with lymphadenectomy. The surgical complication rate was 22.5% in the first 40 patients, and 3.2% in the remaining 94 patients. Except for the first 10 patients, the mean hospital stay was 6.1 days and bladder catheterization 4.8 days. Median catheterization time was 4 days. Histological study of the specimen showed pT2 disease in 101 patients and pT3 in 33 patients, the rate of positive margins was 16.8 and 48.8%, respectively. At 1 year, overall erection rate (with or without sexual intercourse) was 56%, the rate of patients without pad was 86.2% during the day and 100% during the night.
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic environment seems to comply with the oncologic goals of radical prostatectomy. Improved intraoperative visualization and magnification may provide benefits for the preservation of continence and potency by allowing a more precise dissection and vesicourethral reconstruction. Despite longer operative times and the steep learning curve this new technique is currently proliferating due to expectations of decreased postoperative morbidity and better quality of life.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11528175     DOI: 10.1159/000049747

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  19 in total

Review 1.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: published series.

Authors:  András Hoznek; David B Samadi; Laurent Salomon; Alexandre De La Taille; Leif E Olsson; Clément-Claude Abbou
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 2.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: review and assessment of an emerging technique.

Authors:  J B Basillote; T E Ahlering; D W Skarecky; D I Lee; R V Clayman
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-10-26       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Long-term functional and oncological results after retroperitoneal laparoscopic prostatectomy according to a prospective evaluation of 550 patients.

Authors:  L Goeman; L Salomon; A La De Taille; D Vordos; A Hoznek; R Yiou; C C Abbou
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2006-03-01       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Intensive laparoscopic training: the impact of a simplified pelvic-trainer model for the urethrovesical anastomosis on the learning curve.

Authors:  Vassilis Poulakis; Ulrich Witzsch; Rachelle De Vries; Wolfgang Dillenburg; Matthias Moeckel; Eduard Becht
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2006-04-11       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 5.  Oncological and functional results of open, robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does surgical approach and surgical experience matter?

Authors:  T R Herrmann; R Rabenalt; J U Stolzenburg; E N Liatsikos; F Imkamp; H Tezval; A J Gross; U Jonas; M Burchardt
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2007-03-13       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 6.  Robot-assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Francois Rozet; Justin Harmon; Xavier Cathelineau; Eric Barret; Guy Vallancien
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2006-03-17       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  The single needle method for urethrovesical anastomosis with strengthened posterior fixation during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Xu Zhang; Zhenghua Ju; Chao Wang; Xing Ai; Xin Ma; Taoping Shi; Guoxi Zhang; Baojun Wang
Journal:  J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci       Date:  2009-12-29

Review 8.  Is laparoscopy dying for radical prostatectomy?

Authors:  Xavier Cathelineau; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; Eric Barret; François Rozet; Guy Vallancien
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 3.092

9.  Oncological and functional outcomes of 722 robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) cases: The largest Canadian 5-year experience.

Authors:  Côme Tholomier; Marc Bienz; Pierre-Alain Hueber; Quoc Dien Trinh; Assaad El Hakim; Naif Alhathal; Thierry Lebeau; Serge Benayoun; Roger Valdivieso; Dan Liberman; Fred Saad; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Hugues Widmer; Louis Begin; Mathieu Latour; Kevin C Zorn
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 1.862

10.  Seminal vesicle sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using a low-energy source: Better continence and potency.

Authors:  Shrenik J Shah; Vishal Goyal; Rajesh Sachar; Arup Kumar Nath; Nitesh Jain; Kalpesh Kapadia
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2009-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.