Journals / Haseki Tıp Bülteni / 2010 / Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 1

The outcomes of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Laparoskopik radikal prostatektomi sonuçlarımız

Pages
28–33
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The advance in surgical training programs and skills should have an important role to make it a commonly used technique.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: In this study, we analyzed the surgical data and indications of patients, who underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) with the Heilbronn technique, according to the techniques and observed complications.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Between November 2006 and September 2008, 61 patients with prostate cancer underwent LRP at Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Department of Urology.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The advance in surgical training programs and skills should have an important role to make it a commonly used technique.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2006 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: In this study, we analyzed the surgical data and indications of patients, who underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) with the Heilbronn technique, according to the techniques and observed complications. Methods: Between November 2006 and September 2008, 61 patients with prostate cancer underwent LRP at Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Department of Urology. The analyzed preoperative factors were mean age, body-mass index, PSA value, prostate volume measured by transrectal ultrasonography, Gleason score, and hemoglobin levels. Mean operation time, urethrovesical anastomosis time, requirement of blood transfusion and complications were investigated. The postoperative factors such as duration of hospitalization and catheterization were also analyzed. Results: The mean operating time was 257.1±64.6 (190-460) and the mean urethrovesical anastomosis time was 47.6±12.1 (29-90) minutes. Pelvic lymphadenectomy and nerve sparing surgery were performed in 62% and 32% of the patients, respectively. Blood transfusion was needed in 36% of patients in perioperative or postoperative period. The mean hospitalization time was 4.4±1.3 days. The mean urethral catheterization time was 9.3±2.9 (5-17) days. Conclusion: The data of our series, which is one of the first large series of LRP in our country, show that LRP will evolve as an important surgical procedure in our country in the future. The advance in surgical training programs and skills should have an important role to make it a commonly used technique.

Özet

Amaç: Çalışmamızda kliniğimizde Heilbronn tekniği uygulanarak laparoskopik radikal prostatektomi (LRP) ile tedavi ettiğimiz olgularımızın endikasyonları ve ameliyat verilerini uygulanan teknik ve komplikasyonları göz önüne alarak inceledik. Yöntemler: Kasım 2006-Eylül 2008 tarihleri arasında Haseki Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Üroloji kliniğinde 61 hastaya LRP uygulandı. Olguların yaş ortalaması, ameliyat öncesi hastanın vücut kitle indeksi, PSA değeri, transrektal ultrasonografide elde edilen prostat volümü, Gleason skoru ve ameliyat öncesi ve sonrası hemoglobin değerleri incelendi. Ortalama operasyon süresi, anasto-moz süresi, kan transfüzyon yapılan hastaların oranı, intraopera-tif kan transfüzyonu ve yan etkiler değerlendirildi. Ameliyat sonrası dönemde ise hastanede yatış süresi ve üretral kateterizasyon süresi değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Ortalama ameliyat süresi 257.1±64.6 (190-460) dakika olup, üretrovezikal anastomoz süresi ortalama 47.6±12.1 (29-90) dakika olarak gerçekleşti. Hastaların %62'sine pelvik len-fadenektomi, %32'sine sinir koruyucu işlem uygulandı. Hastaların %36'sına kan transfüzyonu yapıldı. Hastalar ameliyat sonrası ortalama 4.4±1.3 gün hastanede kaldılar. Ortalama üretral kateterizasyon süresi 9.3±2.9 (5-17) gün olarak tespit edildi. Sonuç: Ülkemizde ilk önemli LRP serilerinden birisini oluşturan serimizde elde edilen veriler, LRP'nin ülkemiz açısından gelecekte önemli bir cerrahi yöntem olarak gelişeceğini göstermektedir. Teknik ve laparoskopik cerrahi eğitimin gelişmesi, bu tekniğin hızlı bir uygulama alanının oluşmasında önemli yere sahip olacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKÇAY, M., BİNBAY, M., TEPELER, A., AKMAN, T., KABA, M., YÜRÜK, E., BAYKAL, M., MÜSLÜMANOĞLU, A. Y., TEFEKLİ, A. (2010). The outcomes of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Haseki Tıp Bülteni, Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 1, 28–33. https://ajindex.com/articles/267362

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (2)

  1. Davis CJ, Filipi CJ. A history of endoscopic surgery. In Arregui ME, Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Katkhouda N, et al (eds): Principles of Laparoscopic Surgery. Basic and Advanced Techniques. New York, Springer-Verlag, 1995; p. 15
  2. Abbou CC, Salomon L, Hoznek A, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Preliminary results. Urology 2000;55:630-4. [Abstract] / [Full Text] / [PDF] 3. Bhayani SB, Pavlovich CP, Hsu TS, et al. Prospective comparison of short-term convalescence: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2003;61:612-6. [Abstract] / [Full Text] / [PDF] 4. Lepor H, Neider AM, Ferrandino MN. Intraoperative and postoperative complications of radical retropubic prostatecyomy in a consecutive series of 1000 cases. J Urol 2001; 166:1729-32. [Abstract] / [Full Text] / [PDF] 5. Catalona WJ, Carvalhal GF, Mager DE, Smith DS. Potency, continence and complication rates in 1870 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol 1999;162:433-8. [Abstract] / [Full Text] / [PDF] 6. Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Rozet F, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy. Technical and early oncological assessment of 40 operation. Eur Urol 1999;26:14-20. [Abstract] / [Full Text] / [PDF] 7. Erdo¤ru T, ‹shak Y, Kutlu Ö, Murat Uçar, Erdem Akkaya, Mehmet Baykara. Laparoskopik radikal prostatektomi ile ilk sonuçlar›m›z. Türk Ürol Derg 2005;31:547-54. [PDF] 8. 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 2003;169:1689-93. [Abstract] / [Full Text] / [PDF] 9. Frede T, Erdogru T, Zukosky D, Gulkesen H, Teber D, Rassweiler J. Comparison of training modalities for performing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Experience with 1000 patients. J Urol 2005;174:673-8. [Abstract] / [Full Text] / [PDF] 10. Poulakis V, Dillenburg W, Moeckel M, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Prospective evaluation of the learning curve. Eur Urol 2005;47:167-75. [Abstract] / [Full Text] / [PDF] 11. Hoznek A, Samadi DB, Salamon L, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Curr Urol Rep 2002;3:141-7. [Abstract] / [Full Text] / [PDF] 12. Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M Members of the VIP Team. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: Experience in one institution. BJU Int 2003;92:205-10. [Abstract] / [Full Text] / [PDF] 13. Kaye KW, Creed KE, Wilson GJ D'Antuono M, Dawkins HJ.