Staging lymphadenectomy in patients with localized high risk prostate cancer: comparison of the laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) technique with conventional multiport laparoscopy

被引:1
|
作者
Friedersdorff, Frank [1 ]
Aghdassi, Seven Johannes [1 ]
Magheli, Ahmed [1 ]
Richter, Maximilian [1 ]
Stephan, Carsten [1 ]
Busch, Jonas [1 ]
Boehmer, Dirk [2 ]
Miller, Kurt [1 ]
Fuller, T. Florian [1 ]
机构
[1] Charite, Dept Urol, D-10117 Berlin, Germany
[2] Charite, Dept Radiat Oncol, D-10117 Berlin, Germany
来源
BMC UROLOGY | 2014年 / 14卷
关键词
Laparoscopy; LESS; Single port; Prostate cancer staging; LYMPH-NODE DISSECTION; PORT LAPAROSCOPY; SURGERY; CHOLECYSTECTOMY; APPENDECTOMY; EVOLUTION;
D O I
10.1186/1471-2490-14-92
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
Background: In patients with localized high-risk prostate cancer awaiting radiation therapy, pelvic lymphadenectomy (PL) is a reliable minimally invasive staging procedure. We compared outcomes after laparoendoscopic single site PL (LESSPL) with those after conventional multiport laparoscopic PL (MLPL). Methods: A retrospective case-control study was carried out at the authors' center. For LESSPL the reusable X-Cone single port was combined with straight and prebent laparoscopic instruments and an additional 3 mm needlescopic grasper. MLPL was performed via four trocars of different sizes using standard laparoscopic instruments. Results: Patients who underwent either LESSPL (n = 20) or MLPL (n = 97) between January 2008 and July 2013, were included in the study. Demographic data were comparable between groups. Patients in the LESSPL group tended to be older and had a significantly higher ASA-score. The mean operating time was 172.4 +/- 34.1 min for LESSPL and 116.6 +/- 40.1 min for MLPL (P < .001). During LESSPL, no conversion to MLPL was necessary. An average of 12 lymph nodes per patient was retrieved, with no significant difference between study groups. Postoperative pain scores were similar between groups. The hospital stay was 2.3 +/- 0.7 days after LESSPL and 3.1 +/- 1.2 days after MLPL (P = .01). Two days postoperatively, significantly more patients after LESSPL than after MLPL recovered their normal physical activity (P < .001). Six months postoperatively, no complications were registered in the LESSPL group and cosmetic results were excellent. Conclusions: In the present study, shorter hospitalization and quicker postoperative recovery were major benefits of LESSPL over MLPL. In patients with localized prostate cancer, staging LESS pelvic lymphadenectomy may be a safe alternative to conventional multiport laparoscopy.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Staging lymphadenectomy in patients with localized high risk prostate cancer: comparison of the laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) technique with conventional multiport laparoscopy
    Frank Friedersdorff
    Seven Johannes Aghdassi
    Ahmed Magheli
    Maximilian Richter
    Carsten Stephan
    Jonas Busch
    Dirk Boehmer
    Kurt Miller
    T Florian Fuller
    BMC Urology, 14
  • [2] Comparative study of hybrid laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) partial nephrectomy and conventional multiport laparoscopy
    Redondo, C.
    Esquinas, C.
    Meilan, E.
    Garcia-Tello, A.
    Arance, I.
    Angulo, J. C.
    ACTAS UROLOGICAS ESPANOLAS, 2017, 41 (04): : 242 - 248
  • [3] Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) varicocelectomy with reusable components: comparison with the conventional laparoscopic technique
    Friedersdorff, Frank
    Aghdassi, Seven Johannes
    Werthemann, Peter
    Cash, Hannes
    Goranova, Irena
    Busch, Jonas Felix
    Ebbing, Jan
    Hinz, Stefan
    Miller, Kurt
    Neymeyer, Joerg
    Fuller, Tom Florian
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2013, 27 (10): : 3646 - 3652
  • [4] Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) varicocelectomy with reusable components: comparison with the conventional laparoscopic technique
    Frank Friedersdorff
    Seven Johannes Aghdassi
    Peter Werthemann
    Hannes Cash
    Irena Goranova
    Jonas Felix Busch
    Jan Ebbing
    Stefan Hinz
    Kurt Miller
    Joerg Neymeyer
    Tom Florian Fuller
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2013, 27 : 3646 - 3652
  • [5] Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Technique Contrasted with Conventional Laparoscopy in Cystectomy for Benign Ovarian Cysts
    Jiang, Xinru
    Zuo, Xin
    Zhu, Hongdi
    CURRENT THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH-CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL, 2023, 99
  • [6] Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) robot-assisted nephroureterectomy: comparison with conventional multiport technique in the management of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma
    Lim, Sey Kiat
    Shin, Tae-Young
    Kim, Kwang Hyun
    Han, Woong Kyu
    Chung, Byung Ha
    Hong, Sung Joon
    Choi, Young Deuk
    Rha, Koon Ho
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2014, 114 (01) : 90 - 97
  • [7] Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Radical Nephrectomy: A Comparison with Conventional Laparoscopy
    Seo, Ill Young
    Lee, Jea Whan
    Rim, Joung Sik
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2011, 25 (03) : 465 - 469
  • [8] Comparison of laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) and conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy at a single institution
    Stamatakis, Lambros
    Mercado, Miguel A.
    Choi, Judy M.
    Sanchez, Edward J.
    Gaber, A. Osama
    Knight, Richard J.
    Mayer, Wesley A.
    Link, Richard E.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2013, 112 (02) : 198 - 206
  • [9] Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery: comparison of surgical port performance in a surgical simulator with novices
    Brown-Clerk, Bernadette
    de laveaga, Adam E.
    LaGrange, Chad A.
    Wirth, Laura M.
    Lowndes, Bethany R.
    Hallbeck, M. Susan
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2011, 25 (07): : 2210 - 2218
  • [10] Preservation of the saphenous vein during laparoendoscopic single-site inguinal lymphadenectomy: comparison with the conventional laparoscopic technique
    Yuan, Jun-Bin
    Chen, Min-Feng
    Qi, Lin
    Li, Yuan
    Li, Yang-Le
    Chen, Cheng
    Chen, Jin-bo
    Zu, Xiong-Bing
    Liu, Long-Fei
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2015, 115 (04) : 613 - 618