Literature DB >> 12875937

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: perioperative complications in an initial and consecutive series of 80 cases.

Andrea Gregori1, Alchiede Simonato, Andrea Lissiani, Andrea Bozzola, Stefano Galli, Franco Gaboardi.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We retrospectively evaluated the intraoperative and early postoperative complications of the initial experience with the first 80 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies performed at our institution.
METHODS: Between January 17, 2001 and July 24, 2002, 80 patients between 53 and 78 years old (mean age 63.8) with clinically localized prostate cancer underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Montsouris technique. A total of 24 (30%) staging pelvic lymphadenectomy were performed. The inpatient and outpatient medical records as well as all complications were reviewed.
RESULTS: The pathological tumor stage revealed 18 pT2a (22.5%), 29 pT2b (36.25%), 21 pT3a (26.25%), 10 pT3b (12.5%), 1 pT4 (1.25%), 1 pT4 N1 (1.25%). No conversion was necessary in all cases. Mean operative time was 218 minutes (range 150-420) overall, mean blood loss was 376 ml (range 50-1000) and the mean postoperative hospital stay was 4.5 days (range 3-9). The mean and the median duration of bladder catheterization were respectively 11 and 10 days (range 7-23). Injury to the epigastric vessels was detected intraoperatively in 5 cases (6.25%) with immediate hemostasis achieved. There was 1 death (1.25%) 35 days after a cerebrovascular accident occurred on postoperative day 3. We observed 1 (1.25%) postoperative ileus, hemoperitoneum in 5 cases (6.25%), 2 (2.5%) acute urinary retentions, 6 (7.5%) anastomotic leakages, 1 (1.25%) anastomotic stricture, 1 (1.25%) hydrocele and 2 (2.5%) urinary tract infections.
CONCLUSIONS: In our initial experience laparoscopic radical prostatectomy was performed with no complications in 77.5% of patients. We observed major and minor complications respectively in 16.25% and 6.25% of the patients. Our series provides evidence that the laparoscopic approach is feasible and associated with acceptable perioperative morbidity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12875937     DOI: 10.1016/s0302-2838(03)00261-6

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


  11 in total

1.  Open Versus Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: The European and US Experience.

Authors:  Julia Finkelstein; Elisabeth Eckersberger; Helen Sadri; Samir S Taneja; Herbert Lepor; Bob Djavan
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2010

2.  Comparative study of the impact of 3- versus 8-month neoadjuvant hormonal therapy on outcome of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Xiao-Yong Pu; Xing-Huan Wang; Yi-Long Wu; Huai-Peng Wang
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-04-25       Impact factor: 4.553

Review 3.  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

4.  Modified apical dissection of the prostate improves early continence in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: technique and initial results.

Authors:  Xin Gao; Ke-Bing Wang; Xiao-Yong Pu; Xiang-Fu Zhou; Jian-Guang Qiu
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-09-23       Impact factor: 4.553

5.  Single-centre study comparing standard apical dissection with a modified technique to facilitate vesico-urethral anastomosis during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Xin Gao; Xiao-Yong Pu; Jie Si-Tu; Wen-Tao Huang
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2011-02-07       Impact factor: 3.285

6.  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

7.  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

Review 8.  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

9.  Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy is a feasible option in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Taku Naiki; Noriyasu Kawai; Takehiko Okamura; Daisuke Nagata; Yoshiyuki Kojima; Hidetoshi Akita; Takahiro Yasui; Keiichi Tozawa; Kenjiro Kohri
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 2.264

10.  Approach to endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): the impact of previous laparoscopic experience on the learning curve.

Authors:  Andreas Blana; Markus Straub; Peter J Wild; Jens C Lunz; Thorsten Bach; Wolf F Wieland; Roman Ganzer
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2007-07-09       Impact factor: 2.264

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.