Progression of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Improved outcomes with the extraperitoneal approach and a running anastomosis

被引:14
作者
Cohen, Michael S.
Triaca, Veronica
Silverman, Mark L.
Tuerk, Ingolf A.
机构
[1] Lahey Clin Med Ctr, Dept Urol, Burlington, MA 01805 USA
[2] Lahey Clin Med Ctr, Dept Pathol, Burlington, MA 01805 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1089/end.2006.20.574
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 compare the operative and perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing either a transperitoneal or an extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (TLRP or ELRP) with either an interrupted or a running urethrovesical anastomosis (IUVA or RUVA). Patients and Methods: From January 2003 through December 2004, 265 patients underwent LRP by one surgeon at the Lahey Clinic Medical Center. They were divided into three groups according to the operative approach (TLRP or ELRP) and the suture anastomosis (IUVA or RUVA): group 1 = TLRP and IUVA (N 58; 21.6 %), group 2 = TLRP and RUVA (N = 35; 13.1 %), and group 3 = ELRP and RUVA (N = 172; 64.2 %). Results: Group 3 had statistically better outcomes, as judged by operative time (222, 191, and 170 minutes for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively; P < 0.0001), postoperative analgesic use (39.6, 30.4. and 18.9 mg of narcotic; P < 0.0001), length of stay (3.76, 2.74 days, and 1.67 days; P < 0.0001), leak on postoperative cystogram (17.9%, 11.4%, and 3.5%; P = 0.001), and complication rate (32.8%, 11.4%, and 9.9%; P < 0.0001). The groups had similar estimated blood loss (168, 145, and 176 mL) and positive surgical-margin rates (15.5%, 14.3%, and 14.5%). Conclusions: We demonstrate improved surgical outcome for ELRP with RUVA in regard to operative time, analgesic use, length of stay, leak rate, and complication rate. Long-term follow-up will determine whether a difference exists in disease recurrence, continence, and erectile function.
引用
收藏
页码:574 / 579
页数:6
相关论文
共 12 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1992, J UROLOGY
[2]   Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal approach to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: An assessment of 156 cases [J].
Brown, JA ;
Rodin, D ;
Lee, B ;
Dahl, DM .
UROLOGY, 2005, 65 (02) :320-324
[3]   Transperitoneal or extraperitoneal approach for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A false debate over a real challenge [J].
Cathelineau, X ;
Cahill, D ;
Widmer, H ;
Rozet, F ;
Baumert, H ;
Vallancien, G .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2004, 171 (02) :714-716
[4]   Transperitoneal or extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Does the approach matter? [J].
Eden, CG ;
King, D ;
Kooiman, GG ;
Adams, TH ;
Sullivan, ME ;
Vass, JA .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2004, 172 (06) :2218-2223
[5]   Assessment of surgical technique and perioperative morbidity associated with extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy [J].
Hoznek, A ;
Antiphon, P ;
Borkowski, T ;
Gettman, MT ;
Katz, R ;
Salomon, L ;
Zaki, S ;
de la Taille, A ;
Abbou, CC .
UROLOGY, 2003, 61 (03) :617-622
[6]   Initial experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy [J].
Raboy, A ;
Ferzli, G ;
Albert, P .
UROLOGY, 1997, 50 (06) :849-853
[7]   Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: A comparative study at a single institution [J].
Rassweiler, J ;
Seemann, O ;
Schulze, M ;
Teber, D ;
Hatzinger, M ;
Frede, T .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2003, 169 (05) :1689-1693
[8]   Transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Descending technique [J].
Rhee, HK ;
Triaca, V ;
Sorcini, A ;
Tuerk, IA .
JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2004, 18 (07) :601-604
[9]   Radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of oncological and functional results between open and laparoscopic approaches [J].
Roumeguere, T ;
Bollens, R ;
Vanden Bossche, M ;
Rochet, D ;
Bialek, D ;
Hoffman, P ;
Quackels, T ;
Damoun, A ;
Wespes, E ;
Schulman, CC ;
Zlotta, AR .
WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2002, 20 (06) :360-366
[10]   Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Initial short-term experience [J].
Schuessler, WW ;
Schulam, PG ;
Clayman, RV ;
Kavoussi, LR .
UROLOGY, 1997, 50 (06) :854-857