Literature DB >> 12686810

Laparoscopic [correction of laproscopic] management of rectal injury during laparoscopic [correction of laproscopic] radical prostatectomy.

B Guillonneau1, R Gupta, H El Fettouh, X Cathelineau, H Baumert, G Vallancien.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Rectal injury is a potential complication of radical prostatectomy. Because laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is still a challenging procedure, we review the incidence and management of rectal injury in 1,000 cases of consecutive laparoscopic radical prostatectomy performed at our institution.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of the first 1,000 laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomies performed between January 1998 and April 2002, 13 (1.3%) were complicated by rectal injury. Mean patient age was 66.5 years (range 58 to 76) and mean prostate specific antigen was 12.9 ng./ml. (range 2.9 to 26). Clinical stage was T1c, T2a and T2b in 5, 7 and 1 patient, respectively. Mean preoperative Gleason score was 5.8 (range 3 to 8). Once recognized the rectal defect was closed laparoscopically in 2 layers and tested for the absence of leakage. Broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics were given for 7 days. Oral liquids were started the day after surgery with a low residue diet, and a regular diet was started on postoperative day 5. Healing of the vesicourethral anastomosis was confirmed by voiding cystourethrogram on postoperative day 5.
RESULTS: All patients underwent a non-nerve sparing procedure except 1 in whom unilateral neurovascular bundle preservation was done. Of 13 injuries 11 were diagnosed and repaired intraoperatively, and 2 were diagnosed postoperatively. Of the 11 cases of intraoperative diagnosis and repair 9 healed primarily without colostomy and peritonitis was diagnosed in the remaining 2 on days 3 and 4, respectively. Of the latter 2 patients 1 required repair of a small rectal defect without colostomy while the other required colostomy. Colostomy was performed in the 2 patients with delayed diagnosis on days 3 and 4 but even then a rectourethral fistula developed in 1, necessitating secondary repair. Average urethral catheterization time was 8.6 days for the 9 patients with an uneventful immediate postoperative course and mean hospital stay was 6.8 days. For the remaining 4 patients urethral catheterization duration was 12, 13, 15 and 120 days, and hospital stay was 7, 16, 21 and 27 days, respectively. There was no perioperative mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: Rectal injury during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy requires meticulous intraoperative repair in 2 layers, which allows primary healing without diversion colostomy. For injury prevention scrupulous attention is required during non-nerve sparing radical prostatectomy, particularly at the posterior surface of the prostatic apex.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12686810     DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000059860.00022.07

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  15 in total

Review 1.  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 2.  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 3.  Recent advances in the field of urology.

Authors:  Chester J Koh; Anthony Atala
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 4.  Prevention and management of perioperative complications in laparoscopic and endoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Evangelos Liatsikos; Robert Rabenalt; Martin Burchardt; Miguel-Ramirez Backhaus; Minh Do; Anja Dietel; Johanna Wasserscheid; Costantinos Constantinides; Panagiotis Kallidonis; Michael C Truss; Thomas R Herrmann; Roman Ganzer; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2008-09-10       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Rectourethral fistula following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  L Chun; M A Abbas
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2011-07-01       Impact factor: 3.781

6.  [Radical prostatectomy. Detection and management of intra- and postoperative complications].

Authors:  M Saar; C H Ohlmann; M Janssen; M Stöckle; S Siemer
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 0.639

7.  Rectal tube or no rectal tube? A viewpoint from Duke University Medical Center.

Authors:  Sean A Pierre; David M Albala
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2008-05-06

Review 8.  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

9.  Conservative management of rectal perforation after nerve sparing endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (nsEERPE) in a patient with a past history of polypectomy.

Authors:  W Y Khoder; A J Becker; B Schlenker; S Tritschler; P J Bastian; C G Stief
Journal:  Eur J Med Res       Date:  2009-07-22       Impact factor: 2.175

Review 10.  Does the extraperitoneal laparoscopic approach improve the outcome of radical prostatectomy?

Authors:  Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Michael C Truss; Athanasios Bekos; Minh Do; Robert Rabenalt; Christian G Stief; Andras Hoznek; Clément-Claude Abbou; Jochen Neuhaus; Wolfgang Dorschner
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 2.862

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.