Peritoneal Flap in Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

被引:28
|
作者
Bruendl, Johannes [1 ]
Lenart, Sebastian [2 ,3 ]
Stojanoski, Gjoko [4 ]
Gilfrich, Christian [4 ]
Rosenhammer, Bernd [1 ]
Stolzlechner, Michael [2 ]
Ponholzer, Anton [2 ]
Dreissig, Christina [5 ]
Weikert, Steffen [5 ]
Burger, Maximilian [1 ]
May, Matthias [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Regensburg, Dept Urol, Caritas St Josef Med Ctr, Regensburg, Germany
[2] Hosp St John God, Dept Urol & Androl, Krankenhaus Barmherzigen Bruder Wien, Vienna, Austria
[3] Paracelsus Med Univ Salzburg, Dept Urol & Androl, Salzburg, Austria
[4] St Elisabeth Hosp Straubing, Dept Urol, Straubing, Germany
[5] Vivantes Humboldt Hosp Berlin, Dept Urol, Berlin, Germany
来源
DEUTSCHES ARZTEBLATT INTERNATIONAL | 2020年 / 117卷 / 14期
关键词
LYMPH-NODE DISSECTION; PELVIC LYMPHADENECTOMY; SYMPTOMATIC LYMPHOCELE; COMPLICATIONS; OUTCOMES; EXTRAPERITONEAL; CANCER; GUIDELINES; THERAPY;
D O I
10.3238/arztebl.2020.0243
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Lymphocele is the most common complication arising after pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in the setting of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). The only data available until now on the utility of a peritoneal flap to prevent lymphocele were retrospectively acquired. Methods: A randomized, controlled, multi-center trial with blinded assessment of endpoints was carried out on 232 patients with prostate cancer who underwent RARP with PLND. The patients in the intervention group were given a peritoneal flap; in the control group, surgery was performed without this modification. The two joint primary endpoints were the rates of symptomatic lymphocele during the same hospitalization as the operative procedure (iT1) and within 90 days of surgery (iT2). The secondary endpoints were lymphocele volume, the need for treatment of lymphocele, complications requiring an intervention, and the degree of postoperative stress incontinence. German Clinical Trials Register number: DRKS00011115. Results: The data were evaluated in an intention-to-treat analysis, which, in this trial, was identical to an as-treated analysis. 108 patients (46.6%) were allotted to the intervention group. There were no statistically significant intergroup differences with respect to any clinical or histopathological criteria. A median of 16 lymph nodes were removed (interquartile range, 11-21). A symptomatic lymphocele arose in 1.3% (iT1) and 9.1% (iT2) of the patients, without any statistically significant difference between the two trial groups (p = 0.599 and p = 0.820, respectively). Nor did the groups differ significantly with respect to lymphocele volume (p = 0.670 on hospital discharge [T1], p = 0.650 90 days after surgery [T2]) or the type and frequency of need for subsequent surgical intervention (p = 0.535; iT2). 81.5% of all patients (n = 189) had no complications at all in the first three months after surgery. Nor were there any intergroup differences at 90 days with respect to the degree of stress urinary incontinence (p = 0.306) or complications (p = 0.486). Conclusion: A peritoneal flap after RARP was not found to influence the rate of postoperative lymphocele, whether asymptomatic or requiring treatment.
引用
收藏
页码:243 / +
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] ANATOMIC ROBOT-ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY AIMING FOR PERSONALIZATION
    Hinata, Nobuyuki
    Hirano, Shinji
    Iwamoto, Hideto
    Masago, Toshihiko
    Morizane, Shuichi
    Hikita, Katsuya
    Yao, Akihisa
    Muraoka, Kuniyasu
    Honda, Masashi
    Isoyama, Tadahiro
    Sejima, Takehiro
    Takenaka, Atsushi
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2012, 26 : A491 - A492
  • [42] Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for large prostate
    Du, J.
    Ho, S. S. H.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2017, 119 : 44 - 44
  • [43] Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Another Canadian experience
    Valdivieso, Roger
    Zorn, Kevin C.
    CUAJ-CANADIAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2014, 8 (3-4): : 98 - 99
  • [44] OPTIMIZING THE FINANCIAL BURDEN OF ROBOT-ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY
    Lone, Zaeem
    Hussein, Ahmed
    Durrani, Mohammad
    Elsayed, Ahmed
    Aldhaam, Naif
    Toner, Zachary
    Kurbiel, Zachary
    Gorsline, Aaron
    Jing, Zhe
    Sniadecki, Karen
    Guru, Khurshid
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 203 : E1137 - E1137
  • [45] Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
    Nagasubramanian, Santhosh
    Leow, Jeffrey J.
    Sooriakumaran, Prasanna
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2025, 39 : S27 - S34
  • [46] A brief overview of the development of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
    Hakenberg, Oliver W.
    ARAB JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 16 (03) : 293 - 296
  • [47] Robot-assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
    Rozet, Francois
    Harmon, Justin
    Cathelineau, Xavier
    Barret, Eric
    Vallancien, Guy
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2006, 24 (02) : 171 - 179
  • [48] Impact of prostate size in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
    Boczko, Judd
    Erturk, Erdal
    Golijanin, Dragan
    Madeb, Ralph
    Patel, Hitendra
    Joseph, Jean V.
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2007, 21 (02) : 184 - 188
  • [49] Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: tips, tricks and pitfalls
    Mottrie, A.
    De Naeyer, G.
    Schatteman, P.
    Frumenzio, E.
    Rossanese, M.
    Ficarra, V.
    MINERVA UROLOGICA E NEFROLOGICA, 2012, 64 (02) : 89 - 96
  • [50] Outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
    Murphy, Declan G.
    Challacombe, Benjamin J.
    Costello, Anthony J.
    ASIAN JOURNAL OF ANDROLOGY, 2009, 11 (01) : 94 - 99