Literature DB >> 16904456

Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience of a single center.

Francesco Porpiglia1, Carlo Terrone, Roberto Tarabuzzi, Michele Billia, Susanna Grande, Francesca Musso, Rodolfo Burruni, Julien Renard, Roberto Mario Scarpa.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To analyze, in a consecutive study, the perioperative, postoperative, and functional results of the transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.
METHODS: A total of 160 patients underwent radical prostatectomy and were subdivided into two groups. Group 1 underwent the transperitoneal approach and group 2, the extraperitoneal approach. The preoperative parameters, age, prostate-specific antigen level, biopsy Gleason score, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, body mass index, and clinical stage, were considered. The perioperative parameters evaluated were the operative time, blood loss, blood transfusion, hospital stay, catheterization time, complications, histopathologic findings, TNM stage, Gleason score, prostate and tumor volumes, and functional results.
RESULTS: The patients in both groups had comparable preoperative data. No differences were observed between the two groups in the intraoperative data, except for the mean operative time (179 +/- 54.6 for group 1 versus 133.7 +/- 27 minutes for group 2). Also, no differences were observed between the two groups in terms of the postoperative data. The proportion of complications was 21.25% in group 1 and 22.5% in group 2. We recorded symptomatic lymphocele requiring treatment with a drain or reoperation in 8 patients (10%) in group 2 and 0% in group 1 (P <0.001) of all the patients who underwent lymphadenectomy. The rate of positive surgical margins was 25% for group 1 and 21.25% for group 2 (P = NS). For those with Stage pT2, the positive margin rate was 7.3% and 10% for groups 1 and 2, respectively. The recovery of continence at 3 months was faster in group 2 (75% of patients versus 50.9% in group 1; P <0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: The extraperitoneal approach required less operative time and enabled faster recovery of continence and the transperitoneal approach prevented the formation of lymphocele.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16904456     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2006.02.039

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  8 in total

Review 1.  Evolution of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): technique and outcome.

Authors:  Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Odysseas Andrikopoulos; Panagiotis Kallidonis; Iason Kyriazis; Minh Do; Evangelos Liatsikos
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2011-12-19       Impact factor: 3.285

2.  Surgical margin status of specimen and oncological outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience after 400 procedures.

Authors:  Francesco Porpiglia; Cristian Fiori; Matteo Manfredi; Susanna Grande; Massimiliano Poggio; Enrico Bollito; Mauro Papotti; Roberto Mario Scarpa
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-06-23       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 3.  Laparoscopic simple prostatectomy versus robot-assisted simple prostatectomy for large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative trials.

Authors:  Kun-Peng Li; Si-Yu Chen; Li Yang
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2022-10-22

Review 4.  Critical appraisal of literature comparing minimally invasive extraperitoneal and transperitoneal radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Panagiotis Kallidonis; Bhavan Prasad Rai; Hasan Qazi; Roman Ganzer; Minh Do; Anja Dietel; Evangelos Liatsikos; Nabi Ghulam; Iason Kyriazis; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2017-08-31

Review 5.  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

6.  U-shape incision on prostate capsule: New intraperitoneal laparoscopic technique in simple prostatectomy: A case report.

Authors:  Hamidreza Zia; Fatemeh Khatami; Seyed Mohammad Kazem Aghamir
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2021-09-04

7.  Does changeover by an experienced open prostatic surgeon from open retropubic to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy mean a step forward or backward?

Authors:  Michael Musch; Ulla Roggenbuck; Virgilijus Klevecka; Heinrich Loewen; Maxim Janowski; Yadollah Davoudi; Darko Kroepfl
Journal:  ISRN Oncol       Date:  2013-01-21

8.  Comparison of efficacy and safety of conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by the transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal procedure.

Authors:  Cao De Hong; Liu Liang Ren; Wei Qiang; Wang Jia; Hu Ying Chun; Yang Lu; Liu Zheng Hua; Li Heng Ping; Yan Shi Bing; Li Yun Xiang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 4.379

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.