I Türk1, S Deger, B Winkelmann, B Schönberger, S A Loening. 1. Department of Urology, Charité Hospital, Medical School of the Humboldt University, Schumannstrasse 20/21, D-10177 Berlin, Germany. ingolf.tuerk@charite.de
Abstract
PURPOSE: The laparoscopic access for radical prostatectomy offers an alternative to the open surgical procedure with less morbidity. We report on our experience with 125 laparoscopic prostatectomies, especially with respect to making the laparoscopic approach a routine procedure and with a view to the oncological and functional results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From June 1999 to September 2000, we performed 125 laparoscopic prostatectomies. These included only patients with cancer stages T1 or T2. The mean PSA concentration was 10.5 ng/ml. Forty-four percent of the patients had undergone previous abdominal and 19% previous transurethral surgery. For our laparoscopic prostatectomies we used the descending technique. Free-hand laparoscopic suturing and in situ knot-tying technique were used for the urethrovesical anastomosis. The mobilized specimens were removed in an endobag via a muscle splitting incision. RESULTS: All 125 procedures could be completed successfully. No case required conversion to open surgery. The average operating time was 255 min, the last 40 procedures taking 200 min only. Mean blood loss was 185 ml. Two patients (2%) required postoperative blood transfusion. After an initial learning curve, catheter remained in place for an average of 5.5 days, and the average postoperative stay in hospital was 8 days. Intraoperative complications were seen in 5 patients (4%). In 13 patients (10.4%) postoperative complications were observed. 86% of the patients are continent 6 months postoperatively. Preservation of the neurovascular bundle and sexual potency is possible. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is an ambitious procedure with a steep learning curve, especially for the laparoscopic dissecting and suturing technique. The excellent sight for dissection results in a reduced blood loss and faster convalescence with an overall lower morbidity. Also with regard to oncological and functional (continence) results the minimally invasive access is at least equivalent to the open procedure. In our opinion, laparoscopic prostatectomy will be the future method of choice for radical prostatectomy.
PURPOSE: The laparoscopic access for radical prostatectomy offers an alternative to the open surgical procedure with less morbidity. We report on our experience with 125 laparoscopic prostatectomies, especially with respect to making the laparoscopic approach a routine procedure and with a view to the oncological and functional results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From June 1999 to September 2000, we performed 125 laparoscopic prostatectomies. These included only patients with cancer stages T1 or T2. The mean PSA concentration was 10.5 ng/ml. Forty-four percent of the patients had undergone previous abdominal and 19% previous transurethral surgery. For our laparoscopic prostatectomies we used the descending technique. Free-hand laparoscopic suturing and in situ knot-tying technique were used for the urethrovesical anastomosis. The mobilized specimens were removed in an endobag via a muscle splitting incision. RESULTS: All 125 procedures could be completed successfully. No case required conversion to open surgery. The average operating time was 255 min, the last 40 procedures taking 200 min only. Mean blood loss was 185 ml. Two patients (2%) required postoperative blood transfusion. After an initial learning curve, catheter remained in place for an average of 5.5 days, and the average postoperative stay in hospital was 8 days. Intraoperative complications were seen in 5 patients (4%). In 13 patients (10.4%) postoperative complications were observed. 86% of the patients are continent 6 months postoperatively. Preservation of the neurovascular bundle and sexual potency is possible. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is an ambitious procedure with a steep learning curve, especially for the laparoscopic dissecting and suturing technique. The excellent sight for dissection results in a reduced blood loss and faster convalescence with an overall lower morbidity. Also with regard to oncological and functional (continence) results the minimally invasive access is at least equivalent to the open procedure. In our opinion, laparoscopic prostatectomy will be the future method of choice for radical prostatectomy.
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
Authors: M Wolfram; R Bräutigam; T Engl; W Bentas; S Heitkamp; M Ostwald; W Kramer; J Binder; R Blaheta; D Jonas; W-D Beecken Journal: World J Urol Date: 2003-07-08 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: J-P Braun; M Walter; M Lein; J Roigas; B Schwilk; M Moshirzadeh; K Eveslage; B Rehberg-Klug; D Hansen; C Spies Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 1.041
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