Literature DB >> 12460349

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the initial UK series.

C G Eden1, D Cahill, J A Vass, T H Adams, M I Dauleh.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To test the reproducibility of other series of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) for safety, efficacy and early oncological and functional results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred consenting patients with clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate and a Gleason sum of < or = 8 opting for surgery underwent LRP undertaken by one surgeon. Their mean (range) age was 62.2 (52-72) years, weight 78.8 (65-100) kg, prostate specific antigen (PSA) level 8.0 (2-32) ng/mL, and Gleason sum 6.0 (4-8). A five-port antegrade transperitoneal technique was used in all cases.
RESULTS: The mean (range) operative duration was 245 (145-600) min, blood loss 313 (50-1300) mL, parenteral morphine sulphate administration 20.2 (0-160) mg and hospital stay after LRP 4.2 (3-13) nights. Bilateral neurovascular bundle preservation was attempted in 58% of patients. The transfusion rate was 3%. The conversion and re-intervention rates were 1% and 2%, respectively. There were eight complications, six of which were in the initial 26 cases, i.e. bladder neck stenosis (two), and rectal injury, laparotomy for bleeding, premature drain removal leading to urinary peritonitis, ulnar nerve neuropraxia, port-site hernia and paralytic ileus in one each. The positive surgical margin rate was 16%. All patients had a PSA level of < or = 0.1 ng/mL at 3 months. By 1 year 90% of patients were pad-free and 62% operated on using a bilateral nerve-sparing technique had erections. There were no biochemical failures. The mean (range) follow-up was 9.8 (1-24) months.
CONCLUSION: The present results are similar to those reported by other centres with greater experience and confirm that LRP is an effective, safe and precise technique. Once intial experience has been gained it offers advantages over open surgery in the form of a dry and magnified operative site, and a lower likelihood of blood transfusion, in addition to the generic advantages of laparoscopy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12460349     DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2002.03049.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  16 in total

Review 1.  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

Review 2.  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 3.  Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The case for open radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Nadeem Shaida; Peter R Malone
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 1.891

4.  Multiphoton microscopy for structure identification in human prostate and periprostatic tissue: implications in prostate cancer surgery.

Authors:  Ashutosh K Tewari; Maria M Shevchuk; Joshua Sterling; Sonal Grover; Michael Herman; Rajiv Yadav; Kumaran Mudalair; Abhishek Srivastava; Mark A Rubin; Warren R Zipfel; Frederick R Maxfield; Chris Xu; Watt W Webb; Sushmita Mukherjee
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-03-28       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 5.  Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a critical review of outcomes reported by high-volume centers.

Authors:  Rafael F Coelho; Bernardo Rocco; Manoj B Patel; Marcelo A Orvieto; Sanket Chauhan; Vincenzo Ficarra; Sara Melegari; Kenneth J Palmer; Vipul R Patel
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2010-10-13       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 6.  Management of complications of prostate cancer treatment.

Authors:  M Dror Michaelson; Shane E Cotter; Patricio C Gargollo; Anthony L Zietman; Douglas M Dahl; Matthew R Smith
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2008-05-23       Impact factor: 508.702

Review 7.  Laparoscopic radical cystectomy: current status, outcomes, and patient selection.

Authors:  Brian H Irwin; Inderbir S Gill; Georges-Pascal Haber; Steven C Campbell
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2009-04-12

Review 8.  Prostate cancer management: (1) an update on localised disease.

Authors:  S R J Bott; A J Birtle; C J Taylor; R S Kirby
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 2.401

9.  Does hospital setting post robotic fellowship training affect outcomes? A multi-institutional comparison of initial outcomes between academic and community settings.

Authors:  Maher Sraj; William T Berg; Chad Gridley; Michael Fumo; Ketan K Badani
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2012-07-24

10.  Embarking with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and dealing with the complications and collateral problems: A single-center experience.

Authors:  Hakan Akdere; Tevfik Aktoz; Mehmet Gürkan Arıkan; İrfan Hüseyin Atakan; Domenico Veneziano; Ali Serdar Gözen
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2019-10-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.