Journals / Turkish Journal of Urology / 2019 / Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 6

Perineoscopic radical prostatectomy: A novel surgical technique for the treatment of prostate cancer

Pages
31–36
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)

Prospective and comparative studies with larger patientseries are required to place this method in routine practice.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The objective of this article is to discuss the technical details of perineoscopic radical prostatectomy (perineoscopic-RP), which we performed for the first time as a surgical treatment for prostate cancer(PCa), and to present the outcomes of three patients who underwent this procedure.Material and methods: Using a robotic scope as an optical system, we performed perineoscopic-RP in 3patients in March 2018.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The mean time thatelapsed to reach the prostate apex was 50±3.6 minutes, including the time required to install the optic andretractor system.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Prospective and comparative studies with larger patientseries are required to place this method in routine practice.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: The objective of this article is to discuss the technical details of perineoscopic radical prostatectomy (perineoscopic-RP), which we performed for the first time as a surgical treatment for prostate cancer(PCa), and to present the outcomes of three patients who underwent this procedure.Material and methods: Using a robotic scope as an optical system, we performed perineoscopic-RP in 3patients in March 2018. Technical details of the procedure have been explained step-by-step in this article.Preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative data of all the patients was analyzed.Results: Perineoscopic-RP was completed successfully without the need to convert to other approachesand/or techniques in all three patients. The patients were in a low-risk group for PCa. The mean time thatelapsed to reach the prostate apex was 50±3.6 minutes, including the time required to install the optic andretractor system. The mean total operative time was 144.3±8.4 minutes. No intraoperative or postoperativecomplications were observed. Surgical margins were negative in all patients. Incontinence was observed in2 patients after the removal of the Foley catheter. All patients achieved complete continence in the 3rd monthduring the follow-up.Conclusion: This technique, of which we presented the initial results in this article, can be successfully performed as a surgical intervention method for PCa. Prospective and comparative studies with larger patientseries are required to place this method in routine practice.

🔖

Cite This Article

TAŞÇI, A. İ., ŞİMŞEK, A., ŞAM, E., ŞEKER, K. G., ATAR, F. A., ŞAHİN, S. (2019). Perineoscopic radical prostatectomy: A novel surgical technique for the treatment of prostate cancer. Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 6, 31–36. https://ajindex.com/articles/379535

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Song W, Park JH, Jeon HG, Jeong BC, Seo SI, Jeon SS, et al. Comparison of Oncologic Outcomes and Complications According to Surgical Approach to Radical Prostatectomy: Special Focus on the Perineal Approach. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2017
  2. e645- e52. [CrossRef] 2. Lowrance WT, Eastham JA, Savage C, Maschino AC, Laudone VP, Dechet CB, et al. Contemporary open and robotic radical prostatectomy practice patterns among urologists in the United States. J Urol 2012
  3. [CrossRef] 3. Laydner H, Akça O, Autorino R, Eyraud R, Zargar H, Brandao LF, et al. Perineal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: feasibility study in the cadaver model. J Endourol 2014
  4. [CrossRef] 4. Kaouk JH, Akca O, Zargar H, Caputo P, Ramirez D, Andrade H, et al. Descriptive Technique and Initial Results for Robotic Radical Perineal Prostatectomy. Urology 2016
  5. [CrossRef] 5. Tuğcu V, Akça O, Şimşek A, Yiğitbaşı İ, Şahin S, Taşçı Aİ. Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: first experience of 15 cases. Turk J Urol 2017
  6. [CrossRef] 6. Taşçı Aİ, Şimşek A, Şam E, Şeker KG, Atar FA, Şahin S, et al. Gasless robotic perineal radical prostatectomy: An initial experience. Turk J Urol 2018
  7. Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Zaffuto E, Bandini M, Dell’Oglio P, Bravi CA, et al. Development and Internal Validation of a Novel Model to Identify the Candidates for Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 2017
  8. [CrossRef] 8. Salomon L, Levrel O, de la Taille A, Anastasiadis AG, Saint F, Zaki S, et al. Radical prostatectomy by the retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic approach: 12 years of experience in one center. Eur Urol 2002
  9. [CrossRef] 9. Janoff DM, Parra RO. Contemporary appraisal of radical perineal prostatectomy. J Urol 2005
  10. [CrossRef] 10. Horuz R, Göktaş C, Çetinel CA, Akça O, Cangüven Ö, Şahin C, et al. Simple preoperative parameters to assess technical difficulty during a radical perineal prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol 2013
  11. [CrossRef] 11. Burgess SV, Atug F, Castle EP, Davis R, Thomas R. Cost analysis of radical retropubic, perineal, and robotic prostatectomy. J Endourol 2006
  12. [CrossRef] 12. Heaton JP. Video-assisted perineal and open surgery. J Urol 1994
  13. [CrossRef] 13. Ellison LM, Pinto PA, Kavoussi LR. Radical endoscopic assisted perineal prostatectomy. J Urol 2003
  14. [CrossRef] 14. Albayrak S, Canguven O, Aydemir H, Goktas C, Cetinel C, A