Literature DB >> 20863611

Athermal division and selective suture ligation of the dorsal vein complex during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of technique and outcomes.

Yin Lei1, Mehrdad Alemozaffar, Stephen B Williams, Nathanael Hevelone, Stuart R Lipsitz, Blakely A Plaster, Channa A Amarasekera, William D Ulmer, Andy C Huang, Keith J Kowalczyk, Jim C Hu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Apical dissection and control of the dorsal vein complex (DVC) affects blood loss, apical positive margins, and urinary control during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP).
OBJECTIVE: To describe technique and outcomes for athermal DVC division followed by selective suture ligation (DVC-SSL) compared with DVC suture ligation followed by athermal division (SL-DVC). DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective study of prospectively collected data from February 2008 to July 2010 for 303 SL-DVC and 240 DVC-SSL procedures. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: RALP with comparison of DVC-SSL prior to anastomosis versus early SL-DVC prior to bladder-neck dissection. MEASUREMENTS: Blood loss, transfusions, operative time, apical and overall positive margins, urine leaks, catheterization duration, and urinary control at 5 and 12 mo evaluated using 1) the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index (EPIC) urinary function scale and 2) continence defined as zero pads per day. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Men who underwent DVC-SSL versus SL-DVC were older (mean: 59.9 vs 57.8 yr, p<0.001), and relatively fewer white men underwent DVC-SSL versus SL-DVC (87.5% vs 96.7%, p<0.001). Operative times were also shorter for DVC-SSL versus SL-DVC (mean: 132 vs 147 min, p<0.001). Men undergoing DVC-SSL versus SL-DVC experienced greater blood loss (mean: 184.3 vs 175.6 ml, p=0.033), and one DVC-SSL versus zero SL-DVC were transfused (p=0.442). Overall (12.2% vs 12.0%, p=1.0) and apical (1.3% vs 2.7%, p=0.361) positive surgical margins were similar for DVC-SSL versus SL-DVC. Although 5-mo postoperative urinary function (mean: 72.9 vs 55.4, p<0.001) and continence (61.4% vs 39.6%, p<0.001) were better for DVC-SSL versus SL-DVC, 12-mo urinary outcomes were similar. In adjusted analyses, DVC-SSL versus SL-DVC was associated with shorter operative times (parameter estimate [PE]±standard error [SE]: 16.84±2.56, p<0.001), and better 5-mo urinary function (PE±SE: 19.93±3.09, p<0.001) and continence (odds ratio 3.39, 95% confidence interval 2.07-5.57, p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: DVC-SSL versus SL-DVC improves early urinary control and shortens operative times due to fewer instrument changes with late versus early DVC control.
Copyright © 2010 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20863611     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.08.043

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


  21 in total

1.  Effect of minimizing tension during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy on urinary function recovery.

Authors:  Keith J Kowalczyk; Andy C Huang; Nathanael D Hevelone; Stuart R Lipsitz; Hua-yin Yu; John H Lynch; Jim C Hu
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-11-08       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Evaluation of Incontinence after Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Using the International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire Short Form and Noting the Number of Safety Pads Needed by Japanese Patients.

Authors:  Katsuya Hikita; Masashi Honda; Bunya Kawamoto; Panagiota Tsounapi; Kuniyasu Muraoka; Takehiro Sejima; Atsushi Takenaka
Journal:  Yonago Acta Med       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 1.641

3.  Evaluation of periprostatic neurovascular fibers before and after radical prostatectomy by means of 1.5 T MRI diffusion tensor imaging.

Authors:  Valerio Di Paola; Adam Cybulski; Salvatore Belluardo; Francesca Cavicchioli; Riccardo Manfredi; Roberto Pozzi Mucelli
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-02-16       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 4.  Does robotic prostatectomy meet its promise in the management of prostate cancer?

Authors:  Kuo-How Huang; Stacey C Carter; Jim C Hu
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after aborted retropubic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Keith J Kowalczyk; Andy C Huang; Stephen B Williams; Hua-Yin Yu; Jim C Hu
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2012-08-19

6.  Ligation-free technique for dorsal vascular complex control during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single-center experience from China.

Authors:  Peng Xu; Abai Xu; Binshen Chen; Shaobo Zheng; Yawen Xu; Hulin Li; Bingkun Li; Peng Huang; Yiming Zhang; Yukun Ge; Chunxiao Liu
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-07-05       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Feasibility study of a clinically-integrated randomized trial of modifications to radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Caroline Bennette; Karim Touijer; Jonathan Coleman; Vincent Laudone; Brett Carver; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2012-02-24       Impact factor: 2.279

8.  Dorsal vein complex preserving technique for intrafascial nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Akio Hoshi; Yukio Usui; Yuuki Shimizu; Tetsuro Tomonaga; Masayoshi Kawakami; Nobuyuki Nakajima; Kazuya Hanai; Takeshi Nomoto; Toshiro Terachi
Journal:  Int J Urol       Date:  2012-10-08       Impact factor: 3.369

Review 9.  The urethral rhabdosphincter, levator ani muscle, and perineal membrane: a review.

Authors:  Nobuyuki Hinata; Gen Murakami
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-04-27       Impact factor: 3.411

10.  Impact of Retzius-sparing Versus Standard Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy on Penile Shortening, Peyronie's Disease, and Inguinal Hernia Sequelae.

Authors:  Keith J Kowalczyk; Meghan Davis; John O'Neill; Harry Lee; Joanna Orzel; Rachel S Rubin; Jim C Hu
Journal:  Eur Urol Open Sci       Date:  2020-10-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.