Literature DB >> 23054325

Simple preoperative parameters to assess technical difficulty during a radical perineal prostatectomy.

Rahim Horuz1, Cemal Göktaş, Cihangir A Çetinel, Oktay Akça, Önder Cangüven, Cahit Şahin, Alper Kafkaslı, Selami Albayrak.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We aimed to propose a practical selection method predicting the easier radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) cases before the operation.
METHODS: Fifty sequential RPP cases were divided into two groups according to the estimated difficulty of the operation (Group I: Easier, Group II: Difficult) which was assessed by using a RPP difficulty scale, constituted by three parameters (operation time, blood loss, and the judgment of the surgeon) each ranging between 1 and 3 points. As the localization parameters, skin-to-prostatic apex (SPAD) and skin-to-prostatic base (SPBD) distances and distance between bilateral ischial tuberosities (ITD) were measured. During suprapubic ultrasonography, a probe-divergence angle (PDA) and prostate volumes (PV) were recorded. These parameters were compared between the groups.
RESULTS: In Group I (n = 29) and Group II (n = 21), the difficulty scores were 4.37 (3-5) and 6.80 (6-9), respectively. Data of age, clinical stages, and findings of digital rectal examination were not different between groups. While SPBD, SPAD, and ITD values were found similar (p > 0.05), PDA and PV were significantly different. PDA was > 45 degree in 21 cases in Group I (72.4 %) and in 7 cases in Group II (33.3 %) (p = 0.011). The mean of PV was 37.4 (20-60) cc and 49.9 (30-75) cc in Group I and Group II, respectively (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: While planning RPP operations, by selecting the prostate cancer cases with a prostate of low volume and localized deeper in the pelvis during suprapubic ultrasonography, urologists may have a chance to perform this technique more easily during the learning period.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23054325     DOI: 10.1007/s11255-012-0310-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol        ISSN: 0301-1623            Impact factor:   2.370


  10 in total

1.  Topographic anatomy of the male perineal structures with special reference to perineal approaches for radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Akio Matsubara; Gen Murakami; Takashi Arakawa; Hiroaki Yasumoto; Kazuaki Mutaguchi; Keiichi Akita; Kousuke Asano; Kouji Mita; Tsuguru Usui
Journal:  Int J Urol       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 3.369

2.  The early diagnosis and radical cure of carcinoma of the prostate. Being a study of 40 cases and presentation of a radical operation which was carried out in four cases. 1905.

Authors:  Hugh H Young
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Specific complications of radical perineal prostatectomy: a single institution study of more than 600 cases.

Authors:  Rolf Gillitzer; Sebastian W Melchior; Christian Hampel; Christoph Wiesner; Jan Fichtner; Joachim W ThUroff
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Continence, potency and morbidity after radical perineal prostatectomy.

Authors:  V E Weldon; F R Tavel; H Neuwirth
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Radical perineal prostatectomy and early continence: outcomes after 120 cases.

Authors:  Selami Albayrak; Onder Canguven; Cemal Goktas; Cihangir Cetinel; Rahim Horuz; Huseyin Aydemir
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2010 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.541

6.  Radical prostatectomy: is the perineal approach more difficult to learn?

Authors:  J Mokulis; I Thompson
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Contemporary appraisal of radical perineal prostatectomy.

Authors:  Daniel M Janoff; Raul O Parra
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Cost analysis of radical retropubic, perineal, and robotic prostatectomy.

Authors:  Scott V Burgess; Fatih Atug; Erik P Castle; Rodney Davis; Raju Thomas
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.942

9.  Gender differences in pelvic anatomy and effects on rectal cancer surgery.

Authors:  Kazuhiro Seike; Keiji Koda; Kenji Oda; Chihiro Kosugi; Kimio Shimizu; Masaru Miyazaki
Journal:  Hepatogastroenterology       Date:  2009 Jan-Feb

10.  Rectal injury in radical perineal prostatectomy.

Authors:  Homero Oliveira de Arruda; Jose Cury; Valdemar Ortiz; Miguel Srougi
Journal:  Tumori       Date:  2007 Nov-Dec
  10 in total
  3 in total

1.  [Impact of diagnostic ureteroscopy and biopsy on radical nephroureterectomy of upper tract urothelial carcinoma].

Authors:  R Z Ma; H Z Xia; M Lu; Z Y Zhang; Q M Zhang; J Lu; G L Wang; L L Ma
Journal:  Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban       Date:  2019-08-18

2.  Perineoscopic radical prostatectomy: A novel surgical technique for the treatment of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ali İhsan Taşçı; Abdulmuttalip Şimşek; Emre Şam; Kamil Gökhan Şeker; Feyzi Arda Atar; Selçuk Şahin
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2019-10-25

3.  Increased body mass index is associated with operative difficulty during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Daniel D Shapiro; John W Davis; Wendell H Williams; Brian F Chapin; John F Ward; Curtis A Pettaway; Justin R Gregg
Journal:  BJUI Compass       Date:  2021-09-27
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.