The Use of a Laparoscopic Bulldog Clamp to Control the Dorsal Vein Complex During Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Novel Technique

被引:12
|
作者
Tufek, Ilter [1 ]
Argun, Burak [2 ]
Atug, Fatih [3 ]
Keskin, Mehmet Selcuk [1 ]
Obek, Can [4 ]
Coskuner, Enis Rauf [1 ]
Kural, Ali Riza [2 ]
机构
[1] Istanbul Acibadem Univ, Dept Urol, Sch Med, TR-34457 Istanbul, Turkey
[2] Acibadem Maslak Hosp, Dept Urol, Istanbul, Turkey
[3] Istanbul Bilim Univ, Dept Urol, Sch Med, Istanbul, Turkey
[4] Istanbul Univ, Dept Urol, Cerrahpasa Med Sch, Istanbul, Turkey
关键词
POSITIVE SURGICAL MARGINS; VATTIKUTI-INSTITUTE PROSTATECTOMY; LIGATION; SUTURE; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1089/end.2012.0013
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Purpose: To describe a novel technique to control dorsal vein complex (DVC) during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Patients and Methods: We have been using a laparoscopic bulldog clamp to control DVC before apical dissection and urethral division. Data of 50 patients who underwent DVC control with laparoscopic bulldog clamp (group 1) were retrospectively compared with 50 consecutive patients in whom DVC was controlled with suture ligation (group 2). In the bulldog and suture groups, 30 and 31 patients underwent concomitant bilateral extended pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND), respectively. Operative and anastomosis time, estimated blood loss (EBL), apical surgical margin positivity, and early continence rates were evaluated. Results: Patients in the bulldog group had significantly shorter operative time compared with patients in the suture group (146.8 vs 178.4 min, P=0.0005). Anastomosis time was significantly shorter in the bulldog group (12.3 vs 15.5min, P=0.002). There was no difference in EBL between the groups (185 vs 184.2 mL). Immediate, postoperative first and third month continence rates were 62% vs 44%, 74% vs 60%, 90% vs 74% in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Although continence rates were better in favor of the bulldog group at each evaluation period, the difference did not reach statistical difference. None of the patients in both groups had apical surgical margin positivity. Conclusions: The use of a laparoscopic bulldog clamp to control DVC was associated with shorter operation and anastomosis time and a trend toward quicker recovery of continence. This technique provides clear vision during apical dissection and urethral division while potentially minimizing the external sphincteric trauma. Prospective randomized trials are needed for better evaluation of this technique.
引用
收藏
页码:29 / 33
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Robot-Assisted Intrafascial Simple Prostatectomy: Novel Technique
    Clavijo, Rafael
    Carmona, Oswaldo
    De Andrade, Robert
    Almanzor, Octavio
    Garza, Roberto
    Fernandez, Golena
    Sotelo, Rene
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2013, 27 (03) : 328 - 332
  • [22] Nerve-sparing technique and urinary control after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy
    Choi, Wesley W.
    Freire, Marcos P.
    Soukup, Jane R.
    Yin, Lei
    Lipsitz, Stuart R.
    Carvas, Fernando
    Williams, Stephen B.
    Hu, Jim C.
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2011, 29 (01) : 21 - 27
  • [23] Apical Margins after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Does Technique Matter?
    Guru, Khurshid A.
    Perlmutter, Adam E.
    Sheldon, Matthew J.
    Butt, Zubair M.
    Zhang, Shaozeng
    Tan, Wei
    Wilding, Gregory
    Kim, Hyung L.
    Mohler, James L.
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2009, 23 (01) : 123 - 127
  • [24] Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: comparison of oncological outcomes at a single center
    Okegawa, Takatsugu
    Omura, Shota
    Samejima, Mio
    Ninomiya, Naoki
    Taguchi, Satoru
    Nakamura, Yu
    Yamaguchi, Tsuyoshi
    Tambo, Mitsuhiro
    Fukuhara, Hiroshi
    PROSTATE INTERNATIONAL, 2020, 8 (01) : 16 - 21
  • [25] Stepwise Description and Outcomes of Bladder Neck Sparing During Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy
    Friedlander, David F.
    Alemozaffar, Mehrdad
    Hevelone, Nathanael D.
    Lipsitz, Stuart R.
    Hu, Jim C.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2012, 188 (05) : 1754 - 1760
  • [26] Ureteral Injuries Sustained During Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
    Jhaveri, Jay K.
    Penna, Frank J.
    Diaz-Insua, Mireya
    Jeong, Wooju
    Menon, Mani
    Peabody, James O.
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2014, 28 (03) : 318 - 324
  • [27] Comparison of lymph node yield in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy with that in open radical retropubic prostatectomy
    Lallas, Costas D.
    Pe, Mark L.
    Thumar, Adeep B.
    Chandrasekar, Thenappan
    Lee, Franklin C.
    McCue, Peter
    Gomella, Leonard G.
    Trabulsi, Edouard J.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2011, 107 (07) : 1136 - 1140
  • [28] Predictors of urinary function recovery after laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
    Hakozaki, Kyohei
    Takeda, Toshikazu
    Yasumizu, Yota
    Tanaka, Nobuyuki
    Matsumoto, Kazuhiro
    Morita, Shinya
    Kosaka, Takeo
    Mizuno, Ryuichi
    Asanuma, Hiroshi
    Oya, Mototsugu
    INTERNATIONAL BRAZ J UROL, 2023, 49 (01): : 50 - 60
  • [29] The natural history of voiding function after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
    Wang, Lushun
    Chung, Stephanie Fook-Chong Man
    Yip, Sidney Kam Hung
    Lau, Weber Kam On
    Cheng, Christopher Wai Sam
    Sim, Hong Gee
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2011, 29 (02) : 177 - 182
  • [30] Extrafascial robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in locally advanced prostate cancer
    Pansadoro, Vito
    Brassetti, Aldo
    MINERVA CHIRURGICA, 2019, 74 (01) : 78 - 87