Journals / Turkish Journal of Urology / 2020 / Cilt: 46 - Sayı: 6

The effect of peritoneal re-approximation on lymphocele formation in transperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy

Pages
460–467
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)

Considering that this process also increases the operation time and lymphocele formation, we think there is no need for re-approximation after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of peritoneal re-approximation at the end of the procedure in transperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (tRARP) and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy (ePLND) on operative, oncologic, and symptomatic lymphocele rates.Material and methods: A total of 79 patients were included in the study who underwent tRARP and bilateral ePLND performed by two different experienced surgeons.
📊
Key Findings & Data:One of the surgeons performed the peritoneal re-approximation (Group 1, n=41) and the other did not re-approximate the peritoneum (Group 2, n=38) at the end of the procedure in tRARP and ePLND.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Considering that this process also increases the operation time and lymphocele formation, we think there is no need for re-approximation after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of peritoneal re-approximation at the end of the procedure in transperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (tRARP) and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy (ePLND) on operative, oncologic, and symptomatic lymphocele rates.Material and methods: A total of 79 patients were included in the study who underwent tRARP and bilateral ePLND performed by two different experienced surgeons. One of the surgeons performed the peritoneal re-approximation (Group 1, n=41) and the other did not re-approximate the peritoneum (Group 2, n=38) at the end of the procedure in tRARP and ePLND. Operative parameters and symptomatic lymphocele rates were compared between the groups.Results: There were no significant differences between the preoperative parameters age, body mass index, and preoperative prostate-specific antigen values (p>0.05). The perioperative parameters were as follows: the operation time and estimated blood loss (EBL) was less, and the number of removed lymph nodes was higher in Group 2. However, only the difference in the EBL was statistically significant (p=0.03). Hospitalization time, symptomatic lymphocele, intervention requiring lymphocele, and complication rates were found to be less in Group 2, but only hospitalization time was statistically significant (p=0.04). Pathological parameters were similar for both groups. There was a significant correlation between lymph node positivity and the presence of symptomatic lymphocele in the correlation analysis (p=0.05).Conclusion: It has been shown in this study that the re-approximation of the peritoneum does not provide any additional benefit in terms of complications. Considering that this process also increases the operation time and lymphocele formation, we think there is no need for re-approximation after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy.

🔖

Cite This Article

BOĞA, M. S., SÖNMEZ, M. G., KARAMIK, K., YILMAZ, K., SAVAŞ, M., ATEŞ, M. (2020). The effect of peritoneal re-approximation on lymphocele formation in transperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy. Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 46 - Sayı: 6, 460–467. https://ajindex.com/articles/379534

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 2015
  2. E359‐86. [Crossref] 2. Bell KJL, Mar CD, Wright G, Dickinson J, Glasziou P. Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: A systematic review of autopsy studies. Int J Cancer 2015
  3. [Crossref] 3. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Briers E, Bolla M, Bourke L, Cornford P, et al. Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. EAU - ESTRO - ESUR - SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam. EAU Guidelines Office. 2020
  4. Patel VR, Sivaraman A. Current status of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: progress is inevitable. Oncology 2012
  5. Briganti A, Blute ML, Eastham JH, Graefen M, Heidenreich A, Karnes JR, et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2009
  6. [Crossref] 6. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, Suardi N, Gallina A, Da Pozzo LF, et al. Complications and other surgical outcomes associated with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2006
  7. [Crossref] 7. Orvieto MA, Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Palmer KJ, Rocco B, Patel VR. Incidence of lymphoceles after robot-assisted pelvic lymph node dissection. BJU Int 2011
  8. [Crossref] 8. Lee HJ, Kane CJ. How to minimize lymphoceles and treat clinically symptomatic lymphoceles after radical prostatectomy. Curr Urol Rep 2014
  9. [Crossref] 9. Motterle G, Morlacco A, Zanovello N, Ahmed ME, Zattoni F, Karnes RJ, et al. Surgical Strategies for Lymphocele Prevention in Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy and Lymph Node Dissection: A Systematic Review. J Endourol 2020
  10. [Crossref] 10. Mundhenk J, Hennenlotter J, Alloussi S, Selbherr D, Martzog JC, Todenhöfer T, et al. Influence of body mass index, surgical approach and lymphadenectomy on the development of symptomatic lymphoceles after radical prostatectomy. Urol Int 2013
  11. [Crossref] 11. Atmaca AF, Hamidi N, Canda AE, Keske M, Ardicoglu A. Concurrent Repair of Inguinal Hernias with Mesh Application During Transperitoneal Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Is it Safe? Urol J 2018
  12. [Crossref] 12. Chung JS, Kim WT, Ham WS, Yu HS, Chae Y, Chung SH, et al. Comparison of oncological results, functional outcomes, and complications for transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a single s