OBJECTIVES: Previous transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) was reported to impose difficulties during open radical prostatectomy. We describe our experience in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) following transurethral resection of the prostate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The series included 35 patients: 22 patients underwent transperitoneal LRP (tpLRP) and 13 underwent extraperitoneal LRP (epLRP). The minimal interval between TURP and laparoscopy was 3 months. Patients' charts were reviewed for their preoperative characteristics, intraoperative difficulties and complications, and outcome. RESULTS: Patients' mean age was 67.5+/-4.4 years. 12 patients were cT1a,b and 23 patients were cT1c/T2. Twenty-two patients underwent tpLRP and 13 underwent epLRP. No statistical difference was found between the preoperative characteristics and the pathological results of cT1a,b vs. T1c/cT2 patients, or tpLRP vs. epLRP patients. Thirty-three procedures were completed laparoscopically and 2 were converted to open surgery. Perioperative complications included two leaking anastomoses, prolonged lymph drainage in 1 case, atelectasis (n=1) and duodenal ulcer (n=1). Twelve positive margins were noted, half of them in pT2 tumors. The mean follow-up was 28.5 months. Twenty-five of 35 patients had more than 12 months of follow-up. Among them 19 patients were completely continent (76%) and 6 (24%), reported mild stress incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: Although LRP following TURP is sometimes more technically difficult, simple modifications in the operative strategy help facilitate surgery. LRP following TURP favorably compares to open radical prostatectomy after TURP and laparoscopy in non-TURP patients. Copyright (c) 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel.
OBJECTIVES: Previous transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) was reported to impose difficulties during open radical prostatectomy. We describe our experience in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) following transurethral resection of the prostate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The series included 35 patients: 22 patients underwent transperitoneal LRP (tpLRP) and 13 underwent extraperitoneal LRP (epLRP). The minimal interval between TURP and laparoscopy was 3 months. Patients' charts were reviewed for their preoperative characteristics, intraoperative difficulties and complications, and outcome. RESULTS:Patients' mean age was 67.5+/-4.4 years. 12 patients were cT1a,b and 23 patients were cT1c/T2. Twenty-two patients underwent tpLRP and 13 underwent epLRP. No statistical difference was found between the preoperative characteristics and the pathological results of cT1a,b vs. T1c/cT2 patients, or tpLRP vs. epLRP patients. Thirty-three procedures were completed laparoscopically and 2 were converted to open surgery. Perioperative complications included two leaking anastomoses, prolonged lymph drainage in 1 case, atelectasis (n=1) and duodenal ulcer (n=1). Twelve positive margins were noted, half of them in pT2 tumors. The mean follow-up was 28.5 months. Twenty-five of 35 patients had more than 12 months of follow-up. Among them 19 patients were completely continent (76%) and 6 (24%), reported mild stress incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: Although LRP following TURP is sometimes more technically difficult, simple modifications in the operative strategy help facilitate surgery. LRP following TURP favorably compares to open radical prostatectomy after TURP and laparoscopy in non-TURP patients. Copyright (c) 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Authors: Yu-Kai Su; Benjamin F Katz; Shailen S Sehgal; Sue-Jean S Yu; Yu-Chen Su; Andrew Lightfoot; Ziho Lee; Elton Llukani; Kelly Monahan; David I Lee Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2015-08-08
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