Journals / Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology / 2008 / Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 4

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (Heilbronn technique): Our initial outcomes

Laparoskopik radikal prostatektomi (Heilbronn tekniği): İlk sonuçlarımız

Pages
413–418
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)

By gaining experience, operation time and complication percentage will decrease and it can be applied to a larger patient group.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: The operative and follow-up data of the cases undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in our clinic were evaluated.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: LRP was performed in 32 patients (mean age: 63.1±6.4 years) with clinically organ-confined prostate cancer.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:By gaining experience, operation time and complication percentage will decrease and it can be applied to a larger patient group.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Zaman · Prostatektomi · Laparoskopi

Abstract

Introduction: The operative and follow-up data of the cases undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in our clinic were evaluated. Materials and Methods: LRP was performed in 32 patients (mean age: 63.1±6.4 years) with clinically organ-confined prostate cancer. Data about routine preoperative evaluations, perioperative and postoperative data and follow-up outcomes were evaluated. Results: Mean operative time and mean time for vesicourethral anastomosis were 257.1±20.9 min and 35.1±8.2 min, respectively. Bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy in 5 patients and a nerve-sparing technique in 4 patients were performed within our series. Mean estimated blood loss was 540±156.3 ml and 8 (25%) patients required perioperative transfusion. The procedure was converted to open technique in 1 patient due to bladder perforation. No analgesic medication was needed in 15 (48%) patients after postoperative 2nd day. The mean of total narcotic analgesic (pethidine HCl) used during postoperative period (mean: 5.3 days) was 48.1±15.7 mg. Mean catheterization time was 11.4±2.0 days. An anastomotic stricture developed in 4 patients during late postoperative period. These patients were treated by internal urethrotomy. Conclusion: Laparoscopic radical prostatektomi, is hard to apply and long-learning procedure. The clinic that is at the beginning of the learning period must be more selective about the patient selection. By gaining experience, operation time and complication percentage will decrease and it can be applied to a larger patient group.

Özet

Kliniğimizde yapılan laparoskopik radikal prostatektomi olgularımızın ameliyat verileri ve takip sonuçları değerlendirildi. Klinik olarak organa sınırlı prostat kanseri belirlenen 32 hastaya (ortalama yaş: 63,1±6,4) laparoskopik radikal prostatektomi (LRP) uygulandı. Ameliyat öncesi klasik değerlendirmeler, ameliyat sırasındaki ve sonrasındaki veriler ile takip sonuçları değerlendirildi. Ortalama ameliyat süresi 257,1±20,9 dakika, veziko-üretral anastomoz süresi 35,1±8,2 dakika olarak gerçekleşti. Serimizde 5 hastaya iki taraflı pelvik lenfadenektomi, 4 hastaya sinir koruyucu yaklaşım uygulandı. Ortalama kan kaybı 540±156,3 ml olup, %25 (8 hasta) olguya ameliyat sırasında kan transfüzyonu uygulandı. Bir hastada mesane perforasyonu nedeni ile açık ameliyata geçildi. Hastaların 15’inde (%48) ameliyat sonrası 2. günden itibaren analjezik ihtiyacı olmayıp, ameliyat sonrası ortalama 5.3 günlük hastanede kalış döneminde kullanılan toplam narkotik analjezik (pethidine HCl) miktarı 48,1±15,7 mg olarak gerçekleşti. Hastalarda ortalama üretral kateterizasyon süresi 11,4±2 gün olup geç dönemde 4 hastada anastomoz bölgesinde darlık tespit edildi ve bu hastalara internal üretrotomi uygulandı. Laparoskopik radikal prostatektomi, uygulanması zor, öğrenme eğrisi uzun bir işlemdir. Öğrenme eğrisinin başındaki kliniklerde hasta seçimi açısından daha seçici davranılması gerekmektedir. Deneyimin artması ile ameliyat süreleri ve istenmeyen yan etki oranları azalarak daha geniş bir hasta grubuna cerrahi uygulanabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

TUĞCU, V., POLAT, H., ŞAHİN, S., BİTKİN, A., EREN, G., TAŞÇI, A. İ. (2008). Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (Heilbronn technique): Our initial outcomes. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 4, 413–418. https://ajindex.com/articles/328280

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Schuessler WW, Kavoussi LR, Clayman RV, Vancail-le TH: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Initial case report. J Urol, suppl., 147: 246A, abstract 130, 1992
  2. Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, et al: La-paroscopic radical prostatectomy: Initial short-term expe-rience. Urology 50: 854-857, 1997
  3. Raboy A, Ferzli G, Albert P: Initial experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical retropubic prostatecto-my. Urology 50: 849-53, 1997
  4. Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Baret E, Rozet F, Val-lancien G: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Techni-cal and early oncological assessment of 40 operations. Eur Urol. 36: 14-20, 1999
  5. Ruiz L, Salomon R, Hoznek A, et al: Comparison of early oncologic results of laparoscopic radical prostatec-tomy by extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach. Eur Urol 46: 50-56, 2004
  6. Erdogru T, Teber D, Frede T, et al: Comparison of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using match-pair analysis. Eur Urol 46: 312-20, 2004
  7. Guillonneau B, Vallancien G: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Montsouris technique. J Urol 163: 1643- 8, 2000
  8. Abbou CC, Salomon L, Hoznek A, et al: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Preliminary results. Urology 55: 630-6, 2000
  9. Rassweiler J, Sentker L, Seemann O, Hatzinger M, Rumpelt HJ: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique: An analysis of the first 180 ca-ses. J Urol 166: 2101-7, 2001
  10. Guillonneau B, Rozet F, Cathelineau X, Lay F, Baret E, Doublet JD, Baumert H, Vallancien G: Perioperati-ve complications of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: The Montsouris 3-year experience. J Urol. 167: 51-56, 2002
  11. Rassweiler J, Schulze M, Teber D, Seemann O, Frede T: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Functional and oncological outcomes. Curr Opin Urol. 14: 75-82, 2004
  12. De la Rosette JJ, Abbou CC, Rassweiler J, Laguna MP, Schulman CC: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A European virus with global potentials. Arch Esp Urol, 55: 603-609, 2002
  13. Rassweiler J, Sentker L, Seman O, Hatzinger M, Rumpelt HJ: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique: an analysis of the first 180 ca-ses. J Urol. 166: 2101-8, 2001
  14. Van Velthoven RF, Ahlering TE, Peltier A, Skarecky DW, Clayman RV: Technique for laparoscopic running urethrovesical anastomosis: The single knot method. Uro-logy; 61: 699-702, 2003
  15. Stolzenburg J, Do M, Rabenthal R, et al: Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: Initial exp