Literature DB >> 16903818

Progression of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: improved outcomes with the extraperitoneal approach and a running anastomosis.

Michael S Cohen1, Veronica Triaca, Mark L Silverman, Ingolf A Tuerk.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the operative and perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing either a transperitoneal or an extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (TLRP or ELRP) with either an interrupted or a running urethrovesical anastomosis (IUVA or RUVA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2003 through December 2004, 265 patients underwent LRP by one surgeon at the Lahey Clinic Medical Center. They were divided into three groups according to the operative approach (TLRP or ELRP) and the suture anastomosis (IUVA or RUVA): group 1 = TLRP and IUVA (N = 58; 21.6%), group 2 = TLRP and RUVA (N = 35; 13.1%), and group 3 = ELRP and RUVA (N = 172; 64.2%).
RESULTS: Group 3 had statistically better outcomes, as judged by operative time (222, 191, and 170 minutes for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively; P < 0.0001), postoperative analgesic use (39.6, 30.4, and 18.9 mg of narcotic; P < 0.0001), length of stay (3.76, 2.74 days, and 1.67 days; P < 0.0001), leak on postoperative cystogram (17.9%, 11.4%, and 3.5%; P = 0.001), and complication rate (32.8%, 11.4%, and 9.9%; P < 0.0001). The groups had similar estimated blood loss (168, 145, and 176 mL) and positive surgical-margin rates (15.5%, 14.3%, and 14.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate improved surgical outcome for ELRP with RUVA in regard to operative time, analgesic use, length of stay, leak rate, and complication rate. Long-term follow-up will determine whether a difference exists in disease recurrence, continence, and erectile function.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16903818     DOI: 10.1089/end.2006.20.574

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  5 in total

1.  Analysis of three different vesicourethral anastomotic techniques in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Dogu Teber; Tibet Erdogru; Joanne Cresswell; Ali Serdar Gözen; Thomas Frede; Jens J Rassweiler
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2008-07-02       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Comments on the extraperitoneal approach for standard laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: what is gained and what is lost.

Authors:  Evangelos Liatsikos; Iason Kyriazis; Panagiotis Kallidonis; Minh Do; Tim Haefner; Anja Dietel; Sigrun Holze; Narasimhan Ragavan; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg
Journal:  Prostate Cancer       Date:  2011-09-22

Review 3.  Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal approach in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kun Wang; Qianfeng Zhuang; Renfang Xu; Hao Lu; Guanglai Song; Jianping Wang; Zinong Tian; Qingyan Mao; Pengfeng Gong
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 1.889

4.  Early Continence and Extravasation After Open Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy - Interrupted vs Continuous Suturing for Vesicourethral Anastomosis.

Authors:  Jonas Busch; Frank Friedersdorff; Nora Köhler; Nasrin El-Bandar; Andreas Maxeiner; Bernhard Ralla; Kurt Miller
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2020-12-23       Impact factor: 2.423

Review 5.  The Single-Knot Running Vesicourethral Anastomosis after Minimally Invasive Prostatectomy: Review of the Technique and Its Modifications, Tips, and Pitfalls.

Authors:  Simone Albisinni; Fouad Aoun; Alexandre Peltier; Roland van Velthoven
Journal:  Prostate Cancer       Date:  2016-05-31
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.