Journals / Eurasian Journal of Medicine / 2020 / Cilt: 52 - Sayı: 1

Effect of Reconstructive Techniques on Continence in Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: Novel Combination of Long Urethral Stump and Anterior Suspension Suture

Pages
57–60
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

Continence rate was significantly higher in the reconstructive group inthe 3rd and 6th months compared with the control group (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To investigate the effects of the novel combination of a long urethral stump and anterior suspension suture in patients who underwent Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy (RALP) for localizedprostate cancerMaterials and Methods: Of the 40 participating patients, 20 did not undergo any reconstructive technique,whereas the remaining 20 patients underwent reconstructive technique that included the combination oflong urethral stump and anterior suspension suture.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2), age, preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, prostate volume, Gleason score, D’Amico risk class, clinical stage, operationtype and the application of either perioperative or postoperative reconstructive techniques, and the duration of catheterization were the parameters investigated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Continence rate was significantly higher in the reconstructive group inthe 3rd and 6th months compared with the control group (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the effects of the novel combination of a long urethral stump and anterior suspension suture in patients who underwent Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy (RALP) for localizedprostate cancerMaterials and Methods: Of the 40 participating patients, 20 did not undergo any reconstructive technique,whereas the remaining 20 patients underwent reconstructive technique that included the combination oflong urethral stump and anterior suspension suture. Body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2), age, preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, prostate volume, Gleason score, D’Amico risk class, clinical stage, operationtype and the application of either perioperative or postoperative reconstructive techniques, and the duration of catheterization were the parameters investigated. Continence rate was measured in the 3rd, 6th, and12th month after the removal of the catheter. Both techniques were compared statistically.Results: The control and reconstructive groups each comprised 20 patients. Between the groups, no statistically significant differences were observed in age, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, risk group,prostate weight, perioperative PSA, duration of surgery, duration of hospitalization, surgical margins, and thetotal amount of bleeding (p>0.05). Continence rate was significantly higher in the reconstructive group inthe 3rd and 6th months compared with the control group (p

🔖

Cite This Article

POLAT, Ö., CEYLAN, O., ADANUR, Ş., KARABULUT, İ., YILMAZEL, F. K., YILMAZ, A. H., ÖZKAYA, F., ÇELİK, E. C. (2022). Effect of Reconstructive Techniques on Continence in Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: Novel Combination of Long Urethral Stump and Anterior Suspension Suture. Eurasian Journal of Medicine, Cilt: 52 - Sayı: 1, 57–60. https://ajindex.com/articles/508891

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (2)

  1. Walsh PC. Anatomic Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED Wein AJ (Eds): Campell's Urology 7th Edition 1998; 2565-88
  2. Bianco FJ Jr, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Radical prostatectomy: long term cancer contro and recovery of sexual and urinary function('trifecta'). Urology 2005; 66: 83-94. [CrossRef] 3. Salomon L, Saint F, Anastasiadis AG, Sebe P, Chopin D, Abbou CC. Combined reporting of cancer control and functional results of radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2003; 44: 656-60. [CrossRef] 4. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, at al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary cantinence recovery after robot-asisted radical prostatectomy. Europan Urology 2012; 62: 405-17. [CrossRef] 5. Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, at al. Retropubic, laparoskopic and robot asisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Europan Urology 2009; 55: 1037-63. [CrossRef] 6. Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Rozet F, Vallencien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: technical and early oncological assessment of 40 operations. Eur Urol 1999; 36: 14-20. [CrossRef] 7. Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody JO, et al. Vakutiti Institue prostatectomy, a technique of robotic radikal prostatectomy for management of lacalized carcinoma of the prostate; experience of over 1100 cases. Urol Clin North Am 2004; 31: 701-17. [CrossRef] 8. Ficcara V, Novara G, Rosen RC, at al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot- assisted radical prostatectomy. European Urology 2012; 62: 405-17. [CrossRef] 9. Carlson KV, Nitti NW. Prevantion and management of incontinence following radical prostatactomy. Urol Clin North Am 2001; 28: 595-612. [CrossRef] 10. CoehloRF, Rocco B, Patel MB, at al. Retropubic, laparoscopic and robot asisted radical prostatectomy: a critical review of outcomes reported by high volume centres. J Endourol 2010; 24: 2003- 15. [CrossRef] 11. Kural AR, Altuğ F. The applications of robotic surgery in Urology. Turk J Urol 2010; 36: 248-57. [CrossRef] 12. Patel VR, Palmer KJ, Coughlin G, Samavedi S. Robotic-Asisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: periopetaive outcomes of 1500 cases. J Endourol 2008; 22: 2299-306. [CrossRef] 13. Steiner MS. The pubuprostatic ligament and male urethral suspensory mechanism: an anatomic study. Urology 1994; 44: 530-4. [CrossRef] 14. Noguchi M, Kakuma T, Suekena S, Nakashima O, Mohammed R, Matsuoka K. A ran