Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Initial experience with first 112 cases

被引：3

作者：

Tasci A.I. ^{[1
]}

Bitkin A. ^{[1
]}

Ilbey Y.O. ^{[1
]}

Tugcu V. ^{[1
]}

Sonmezay E. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Bakirkoy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, 34147 Istanbul

来源：

Journal of Robotic Surgery | 2012年 / 6卷 / 4期

关键词：

Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy; Robotic surgery;

D O I：

10.1007/s11701-011-0307-2

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

In this study we report our initial robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) experience for organ-confined prostate cancer with the first 112 cases between August 2009 and January 2011. The mean age was 61 (46-76) years. Gleason scores ranged between 4 and 9, and the mean prostate volume was 38. 7 (15-115) ml. The mean follow-up time was 8. 1 (1-18) months. The mean operative time was 174. 7 (75-360) min, and the mean estimated blood loss was 141 (60-800) ml. A nerve-sparing procedure was performed bilaterally in 79 cases and unilaterally in 15 cases. All the complications seen (8 out of 112 patients, 7. 1%) were grade 1 and 2 according to the Clavien classsification system. Postoperatively, five (4. 4%) patients needed transfusion. Mean drain extraction time was 3. 2 (2-15) days and mean hospital stay was 4 (2-18) days. The catheter was removed on postoperative day 8. 5 (6-20). Surgical margin was positive in 13 (11. 6%) patients. Forty-nine patients have 6 months and 30 patients have 12 months follow-up. The continence rate were 29. 4, 64. 2, 84. 2, 91. 1 and 96. 6% immediately after catheter removal and at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. No anastomotic stricture or urinary retention was seen in the follow-up period. RALRP is a safe and feasible technique in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Our initial experience with this procedure shows promising short-term outcomes. © 2011 Springer-Verlag London Ltd.

引用

页码：283 / 288

页数：5

共 36 条

[1]

Bivalacqua T.J., Pierrorazio P.M., Su L.M., Open, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: optimizing the surgical approach, Surg Oncol, 18, pp. 223-241, (2009)

[2]

Ahlering T.E., Woo D., Eichel L., Lee D.I., Edwards R., Skarecky D.W., Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectony: a comparison of one surgeon's outcomes, Urology, 63, pp. 819-822, (2004)

[3]

Tewari A., Srivasatava A., Menon M., A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution, BJU Int, 92, pp. 205-210, (2003)

[4]

Rassweiler J., Seemann O., Schulze M., Teber D., Hatzinger M., Frede T., Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution, J Urol, 169, pp. 1689-1693, (2003)

[5]

Lepor H., Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, Rev Urol, 7, pp. 115-127, (2005)

[6]

Boccon-Gibod L., Radical prostatectomy: open? Laparoscopic? Robotic?, Eur Urol, 49, pp. 598-599, (2006)

[7]

Rozet F., Harmon J., Cathelineau X., Barret E., Vallancien G., Robot-assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, World J Urol, 24, pp. 171-179, (2006)

[8]

Gettman M.T., Hoznek A., Salomon L., Katz R., Borkowski T., Antiphon P., Et al., Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of the extraperitoneal aproach using the da Vinci robotic system, J Urol, 170, pp. 416-419, (2003)

[9]

Fischer B., Engel N., Fehr J.L., John H., Complications of robotic assisted radical prostatectomy, World J Urol, 26, 6, pp. 595-602, (2008)

[10]

Binder J., Kramer W., Robotically-assisted radical prostatectomy, BJU Int, 87, pp. 408-410, (2001)

← 1 2 3 4 →