OBJECTIVES: To report our experience with 9 consecutive laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) on renal transplant recipients (RTR) and to compare it with other LRPs performed during the same period by the same surgeons. Retropubic radical prostatectomy has widely been described in RTR, whereas LRP has rarely been studied. METHODS: Between January 2007 and December 2008, all clinical data from patients undergoing radical prostatectomy were prospectively collected in a database. The database was searched to find information of LRP on RTR. We compared RTR and other patients for all relevant clinical data and for surgical complications. RESULTS: A total of 9 LRP on RTR (5.8%) and other 164 LRP were performed. LRP on RTR were compared with other LRP. No statistically relevant difference was observed in patient characteristics, biopsy core pathologic analysis, prostate specimen pathologic analysis, and oncologic outcomes. Surgical procedure was also achieved under the same conditions in RTR than in other patients (surgical time, blood loss, transfusion rate, bladder injury). Rectal injury rate was significantly higher in RTR than in other patients (22.2% vs 1.8%, P = .022). CONCLUSIONS: LRP in RTR is feasible. The procedure can be managed the same way as LRP on other patients, but special care must be taken to avoid rectal injury. In our experience, the dissection of the posterior side of the prostate was more difficult on RTR than on other patients.
OBJECTIVES: To report our experience with 9 consecutive laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) on renal transplant recipients (RTR) and to compare it with other LRPs performed during the same period by the same surgeons. Retropubic radical prostatectomy has widely been described in RTR, whereas LRP has rarely been studied. METHODS: Between January 2007 and December 2008, all clinical data from patients undergoing radical prostatectomy were prospectively collected in a database. The database was searched to find information of LRP on RTR. We compared RTR and other patients for all relevant clinical data and for surgical complications. RESULTS: A total of 9 LRP on RTR (5.8%) and other 164 LRP were performed. LRP on RTR were compared with other LRP. No statistically relevant difference was observed in patient characteristics, biopsy core pathologic analysis, prostate specimen pathologic analysis, and oncologic outcomes. Surgical procedure was also achieved under the same conditions in RTR than in other patients (surgical time, blood loss, transfusion rate, bladder injury). Rectal injury rate was significantly higher in RTR than in other patients (22.2% vs 1.8%, P = .022). CONCLUSIONS: LRP in RTR is feasible. The procedure can be managed the same way as LRP on other patients, but special care must be taken to avoid rectal injury. In our experience, the dissection of the posterior side of the prostate was more difficult on RTR than on other patients.
Authors: Cristian Axel Hernández-Gaytán; Francisco Rodríguez-Covarrubias; Ricardo A Castillejos-Molina; Andrés Hernández-Porras; Ignacio Tobia; Justin M Dubin; Ana María Autrán-Gómez Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Benjamin A Sherer; Krishnan Warrior; Karl Godlewski; Martin Hertl; Oyedolamu Olaitan; Ajay Nehra; Leslie Allan Deane Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2017 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.541