PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15597645

Extraperitoneal standard laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Abstract

PURPOSE: To describe our preliminary experience with the extraperitoneal approach for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between February and December 2002, we performed 100 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies by an extraperitoneal approach. RESULTS: Of the procedures, 98 were completed as planned, while conversion to a transperitoneal approach was necessary in 2 patients with previous mesh hernia repair. The mean operative time was 163 minutes. The mean operative blood loss was 375 mL. The transfusion rate was 3%. No rectal, bowel, ureteral, or nervous injury was observed. There were no major complications. There were nine minor complications (four anastomotic leakages, one rectus muscle hematoma, four cases of acute urinary retention). The mean hospital stay was 6.1 days. Mean catheterization lasted 6 days. The pathologic stage was T2a, T2b, T2c, T3a, and T3b in 17%, 22%, 39%, 12%, and 10%, respectively. The mean Gleason score was 7. The margins were positive in 15% of the pT2 and in 35% of the pT3 tumors; 48% of the positive margins occurred in the first 25 cases. The median follow-up was 12 months; 93% of the patients had a serum prostate specific antigen concentration <0.2 ng/mL. No patient has presented with clinical port-site metastasis. All the patients were evaluated by questionnaire sent by mail before and after the surgery. With a median follow-up of 12 months, 86% of the patients were continent (no pads), 7% of the patients used 1 precaution pad, and 7% had need for 1 pad routinely. With a median follow-up of 6 months, among the preoperatively potent patients (IIEF5 >20), the postoperative erection and intercourse rate was 64% and 43% in patients with bilateral and unilateral nerve-bundle preservation, respectively. CONCLUSION: The extraperitoneal technique is a reliable approach for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The choice between a transperitoneal or an extraperitoneal approach depends on the surgeon's experience.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

François Rozet, Carlos Arroyo, Xavier Cathelineau, Eric Barret, Dominique Prapotnich, Guy Vallancien. 2004. Extraperitoneal standard laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2004.18.605

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

[Short history of erectile dysfunction treatment].

Since the origin, the man tried by all possible means to restor his erectile capacity. The obscurantism prevailed for a long time. We had to wait up to the turn of the 19th Century with Freud to get that things evolve a little bit. In the Fifties, the first penile prostheses were developed by Goodwin and Scott. In the Sixties, the behavioral therapies by Masters and Johnson. The Eighties represent the pharmacological revolution with the discovery of the effects of papaverin by Virag, then the E1 prostaglandin by Ishii, as well as the inhibitors of the 5 phospho di esterase (sildenafil, vardenafil, tadalafil) following studies on nitric oxide by Ignarro, Nobel Prize of medicine in 1998.

Erectile Dysfunction↗

Self-reported volume of radical prostatectomies among urologists in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the variability in the volume of radical retropubic prostatectomy (RP) performed by urologists in the USA, and the physician characteristics that predict RP volume, as previous studies showed that individual surgeon volume for RP is associated with clinical outcomes. METHODS: In a nationwide, representative survey of 2000 urologists who treat prostate carcinoma in the USA, we asked respondents to indicate a numerical range of RPs they perform each year (none, 1-10, 11-30, and >30, the last which we defined as 'high volume'). We then identified characteristics of the provider and practice associated with a high volume of RPs. Supplementing survey results with other national data, we estimated the proportion of all RPs in the USA performed by 'high-volume' urologists. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 66.1% (1313 urologists) with no differences between the respondents and non-respondents for the measured demographic variables. Among urologists who performed RPs (89.1% of the sample), 37.3% did < or = 10, 46.9% 11-30 and 15.8% >30 RPs/year. Academic and urological oncology fellowship-trained urologists were, respectively, 41% and 27% more likely than private-practice and non-fellowship-trained urologists to have a high volume of RPs. Of all RPs performed yearly in the USA, only an estimated 46.1% were by high-volume urologists. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of urologists report a RP volume that might be associated with higher rates of cardiac, respiratory, vascular, wound-healing, and genitourinary complications. Further study is needed to characterize the possible relationships between RP volume and tumour recurrence, survival, and long-term erectile dysfunction and incontinence.

Erectile Dysfunction↗