Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal approach to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: An assessment of 156 cases

被引:34
作者
Brown, JA
Rodin, D
Lee, B
Dahl, DM
机构
[1] Med Coll Georgia, Dept Surg, Urol Sect, Augusta, GA 30912 USA
[2] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Dept Urol, Boston, MA 02114 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1016/j.urology.2004.09.018
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives. To compare the results of 122 transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (TP-LRP) procedures with those of 34 extraperitoneal LRP (EP-LRP) procedures to assess for differences in outcomes and complications. Both TP-LRP and EP-LRP have been touted as effective techniques for performing LRP. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 156 LRPs performed by a single surgeon (D.M.D.) at a single institution between October 2001 and June 2003. EP-LRP was introduced in February 2003. Results. The cohorts were similar in terms of mean patient age, height, weight, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification. Of the total cohort, 19 TP-LRP (16%) and 11 EP-LRP (32%) patients had clinical Stage T2; the remainder had clinical Stage T1c. Similarly, 18 TP-LRP (15%) and 9 EP-LRP (26%) patients had a biopsy Gleason grade of 7 or greater. About one third of patients underwent concomitant pelvic lymphadenectomy (all negative), and 15 TP-LRP (12%) and 2 EP-LRP (6%) patients underwent simultaneous inguinal or umbilical hemiorrhaphy. Six TP-LRP patients (5%) required significant lysis of bowel adhesions. The patients in both groups had similar mean operative times (197 minutes and 191 minutes for the TP-LRP and EP-LRP group, respectively; P 0.29). Clinically significant anastomotic leaks were documented in 7 (6%) TP-LRP and 4 (12%) EP-LRP patients (P = 0.22). The two groups had similar mean hemoglobin decreases (3.0 g/dL) and transfusion rates. The mean time of drainage and hospitalization was 0.5 day longer for the TP-LRP cohort. A mean pathologic Gleason grade of 6.3 was noted for each cohort. Twenty-one TP-LRP (17%) and eight EP-LRP (24%) specimens were pathologic Stage T3, and 29 (24%) of the former and 7 (21%) of the latter (P = 0.81) specimens were margin positive. The complication rates were similar (11% and 12% in TP-LRP and EP-LRP groups, respectively; P = 1.0), except for a greater rate of ileus in the TP-LRP cohort (3 patients). Conclusions. Extraperitoneal LRP appears to offer similar results to TP-LRP. TP-LRP was associated with a slightly greater ileus rate and EP-LRP with a slightly greater anastomotic leak rate (P=0.22). However, the latter may have been the result of improved detection. Also, it was easier to manage using the EP-LRP approach. (C) 2005 Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:320 / 324
页数:5
相关论文
共 13 条
[1]   Is laparoscopic radical prostatectomy better than traditional retropubic radical prostatectomy? An analysis of peri-operative morbidity in two contemporary series in Italy [J].
Artibani, W ;
Grosso, G ;
Novara, G ;
Pecoraro, G ;
Sidoti, O ;
Sarti, A ;
Ficarra, V .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2003, 44 (04) :401-406
[2]   Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy - Results after 50 cases [J].
Bollens, R ;
Vanden Bossche, M ;
Roumeguere, T ;
Damoun, A ;
Ekane, S ;
Hoffmann, P ;
Zlotta, AR ;
Schulman, CC .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2001, 40 (01) :65-69
[3]   Transperitoneal or extraperitoneal approach for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A false debate over a real challenge [J].
Cathelineau, X ;
Cahill, D ;
Widmer, H ;
Rozet, F ;
Baumert, H ;
Vallancien, G .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2004, 171 (02) :714-716
[4]   Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Initial 70 cases at a US university medical center [J].
Dahl, DM ;
L'esperance, JO ;
Trainer, AF ;
Jiang, Z ;
Gallagher, K ;
Litwin, DEM ;
Blute, RD .
UROLOGY, 2002, 60 (05) :859-863
[5]  
Dubernard P, 2003, PROG UROL, V13, P163
[6]   Positive margins after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A prospective study of 100 cases performed by 4 different surgeons [J].
El-Feel, A ;
Davis, JW ;
Deger, S ;
Roigas, J ;
Wille, AH ;
Schnorr, D ;
Hakiem, AA ;
Loening, S ;
Tuerk, IA .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2003, 43 (06) :622-626
[7]   Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Description of the extraperitoneal approach using the Da Vinci robotic system [J].
Gettman, MT ;
Hoznek, A ;
Salomon, L ;
Katz, R ;
Borkowski, T ;
Antiphon, P ;
Lobontiu, A ;
Abbou, CC .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2003, 170 (02) :416-419
[8]  
Guillonneau B, 2000, J UROLOGY, V163, P1643, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67512-X
[9]   Assessment of surgical technique and perioperative morbidity associated with extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy [J].
Hoznek, A ;
Antiphon, P ;
Borkowski, T ;
Gettman, MT ;
Katz, R ;
Salomon, L ;
Zaki, S ;
de la Taille, A ;
Abbou, CC .
UROLOGY, 2003, 61 (03) :617-622
[10]   Initial experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy [J].
Raboy, A ;
Ferzli, G ;
Albert, P .
UROLOGY, 1997, 50 (06) :849-853