Assessment of surgical technique and perioperative morbidity associated with extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

被引:93
作者
Hoznek, A [1 ]
Antiphon, P [1 ]
Borkowski, T [1 ]
Gettman, MT [1 ]
Katz, R [1 ]
Salomon, L [1 ]
Zaki, S [1 ]
de la Taille, A [1 ]
Abbou, CC [1 ]
机构
[1] CHU Henri Mondor, Serv Urol, F-94010 Creteil, France
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0090-4295(02)02415-9
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
Objectives. To compare the perioperative morbidity and surgical technique of the two main variants of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the more often used transperitoneal approach with primary dissection of the plane posterior to the seminal vesicles (TP-LRP) and a purely extraperitoneal approach (EP-LRP). Methods. Our initial 20 consecutive patients who underwent EP-LRP and the last 20 consecutive patients who underwent TP-LRP were included in this retrospective study. The two groups were well matched for age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, prostate-specific antigen level, and Gleason score. The mean time for completion of the individual laparoscopic steps was assessed for both approaches. Results. With EP-LRP, the mean operative time was shorter (169.6 minutes versus 224.2 minutes, P <0.001) and patients resumed a full diet earlier (mean 1.6 days versus 2.6 days, P = 0.002). The mean total dose and duration of morphine administration were higher in the TP-LRP group, but the difference was not statistically significant (6.0 mg versus 12.8 mg and 0.5 day versus 0.9 day, respectively). The catheter time was nearly identical in the two groups (mean 5.3 days with TP-LRP and 4.2 days with EP-LRP). The incidence of positive margins was not affected by the surgical approach. Conclusions. These preliminary results suggest that the initial posterior dissection associated with TP-LRP is less efficacious than direct access of the prevesical space during EP-LRP. Measures of perioperative morbidity were at least equivalent, if not superior, for the EP-LRP technique. These findings, together with the significant decrease in operative time with EP-LRP, appear sufficiently important to abandon the transperitoneal technique. (C) 2003, Elsevier Science Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:617 / 622
页数:6
相关论文
共 16 条
  • [1] Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Preliminary results
    Abbou, CC
    Salomon, L
    Hoznek, A
    Antiphon, P
    Cicco, A
    Saint, F
    Alame, W
    Bellot, J
    Chopin, DK
    [J]. UROLOGY, 2000, 55 (05) : 630 - 633
  • [2] Abreu SC, 2002, J UROLOGY, V167, P19
  • [3] Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy - Results after 50 cases
    Bollens, R
    Vanden Bossche, M
    Roumeguere, T
    Damoun, A
    Ekane, S
    Hoffmann, P
    Zlotta, AR
    Schulman, CC
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2001, 40 (01) : 65 - 69
  • [4] Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Technique
    Gill, IS
    Zippe, CD
    [J]. UROLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2001, 28 (02) : 423 - +
  • [5] Guillonneau B, 2000, J UROLOGY, V163, P1643, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67512-X
  • [6] Japanese experience with radical prostatectomy
    Hara I.
    Kawabata G.
    [J]. Current Urology Reports, 2002, 3 (2) : 159 - 163
  • [7] Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy - The Creteil experience
    Hoznek, A
    Salomon, L
    Olsson, LE
    Antiphon, P
    Saint, F
    Cicco, A
    Chopin, D
    Abbou, CC
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2001, 40 (01) : 38 - 45
  • [8] LAPAROSCOPIC APPROACH TO THE SEMINAL-VESICLES
    KAVOUSSI, LR
    SCHUESSLER, WW
    VANCAILLIE, TG
    CLAYMAN, RV
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1993, 150 (02) : 417 - 419
  • [9] ZONAL DISTRIBUTION OF PROSTATIC ADENOCARCINOMA - CORRELATION WITH HISTOLOGIC PATTERN AND DIRECTION OF SPREAD
    MCNEAL, JE
    REDWINE, EA
    FREIHA, FS
    STAMEY, TA
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 1988, 12 (12) : 897 - 906
  • [10] Early removal of the catheter after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
    Nadu, A
    Salomon, L
    Hoznek, A
    Olsson, LE
    Saint, F
    de la Taille, A
    Cicco, A
    Chopin, D
    Abbou, CC
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2001, 166 (05) : 1662 - 1664