Literature DB >> 11528178

Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Results after 50 cases.

R Bollens1, M Vanden Bossche, T Roumeguere, A Damoun, S Ekane, P Hoffmann, A R Zlotta, C C Schulman.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: After an initial experience using transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy as described by Vallancien and Guillonneau, we developed a pure extraperitoneal approach. This approach seems more comparable to the open technique and avoid potential risks of specific complications due to the transperitoneal approach. We evaluated the perioperative parameters (blood loss, operating time, transfusion rate) and postoperative results (oncological results, continence and potency) after our first 50 cases. MATERIAL AND
METHOD: Between September 1999 and September 2000, we performed 50 laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. On average, patients were 63.3 years old (range 47-71), had preoperative mean PSA values of 9.14 ng/ml (1.1-23). Median Gleason score was 6 (4-10) with 2.5 (1-6) positive biopsies for a mean prostate volume of 40 cm(3) (17.5-95.0). Clinical stage was T1, T2a, T2b and T3 in 46.3, 41.5, 9.8 and 2.4% of the cases, respectively. We used a pure extraperitoneal approach and we performed a descending technique starting with the dissection at the bladder neck. The seminal vesicles dissection is comparable to the open approach.
RESULTS: 42 extraperitoneal and 8 transperitoneal procedures were performed (2 in the initial experience, 3 because of previous abdominal surgery and 3 because of incidental peritoneal opening). Mean operative time was 317 min, mean blood loss 680 cm(3), transfusion rate of 13%. 1 patient/50 was converted to an open procedure. Pathological stage was pT1a, pT2a, pT2b, pT2c, pT3a and pT3b in 2.2, 8.5, 42.5, 2.2, 34 and 10.6% of cases, respectively. Positive surgical margins were observed in 22% of cases. The potency rate after neurovascular bilateral bundle preservation was 43% at 3 months (n = 7) and 67% at 6 months and (n = 6) without any further treatment. The continence rate (no pad) was 39% at 3 months and 85% at 6 months. Detectable postoperative PSA at 3 month was observed in 2 patients only. Two major complications occurred: one acute transient renal failure one uretrorectal fistula at day 20.
CONCLUSIONS: The extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy results seem comparable to transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy or open surgery. This approach is reproducible and seems to avoid the potential risks of intraperitoneal injury. Long-term follow up and comparative series are however necessary to further evaluate these new techniques.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11528178     DOI: 10.1159/000049750

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


  32 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

2.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  András Hoznek; David B Samadi; Laurent Salomon; Leif E Olsson; Fabien Saint; Dominique Chopin; Clément-Claude Abbou
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  Evolution of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE)--technical improvements and development of a nerve-sparing, potency-preserving approach.

Authors:  Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Michael C Truss; Minh Do; Robert Rabenalt; Heidemarie Pfeiffer; Michael Dunzinger; Bernd Aedtner; Christian G Stief; Udo Jonas; Wolfgang Dorschner
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2003-07-25       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  [Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. Results after 300 procedures].

Authors:  J-U Stolzenburg; M C Truss; R Rabenalt; M Do; H Pfeiffer; A Bekos; J Neuhaus; C G Stief; U Jonas; W Dorschner
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 5.  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

6.  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

Review 7.  [Laparoscopic pelvic surgery: Where do we stand in the year 2006?].

Authors:  J Rassweiler; D Teber; J de la Rosette; P Laguna; V Pansodoro; T Frede
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 8.  Categorisation of complications of endoscopic extraperitoneal and laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Robert Rabenalt; Minh Do; Benjamin Lee; Michael C Truss; Hartwig Schwaibold; Martin Burchardt; Udo Jonas; Evangelos N Liatsikos
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2006-01-06       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 9.  Complications of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): prevention and management.

Authors:  Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Robert Rabenalt; Minh Do; Benjamin Lee; Michael C Truss; Alan McNeill; Martin Burchardt; Udo Jonas; Evangelos N Liatsikos
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2006-11-04       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.