Laparoscopic versus Open Simple Prostatectomy: An Evaluation of Morbidity

被引:71
|
作者
McCullough, T. Casey [1 ]
Heldwein, Flavio L. [1 ]
Soon, Shawn J. [1 ]
Galiano, Marc [1 ]
Barret, Eric [1 ]
Cathelineau, Xavier [1 ]
Prapotnich, Dominique [1 ]
Vallancien, Guy [1 ]
Rozet, Francois [1 ]
机构
[1] Inst Mutualiste Montsouris, Div Urol, F-75014 Paris, France
关键词
BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA; CONTEMPORARY SERIES; COMPLICATIONS; ADENOMECTOMY; ENLARGEMENT; MILLIN;
D O I
10.1089/end.2008.0401
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
Purpose: To evaluate the morbidity between laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP) and open simple prostatectomy (OSP) in the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Patients and Methods: From January 2003 through January 2008, 280 consecutive patients underwent adenomectomy either by an extraperitoneal laparoscopic transcapsular "Millin" approach (96 patients, 34.3%) or open transvesical approach (184 patients, 65.7%). Medical therapy had failed in all patients. Perioperative and outcome data were recorded and compared. Results: There was no significant difference in patient age, prostate size, uroflow rate, mean International Prostate Symptom Score, operative blood loss, or total time of continuous bladder irrigation between the two groups. Mean operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopy group, 95.1 +/- 32.9 minutes, v the open group at 54.7 +/- 19.7 minutes (P < 0.0001). Total catheter time was significantly shorter in the laparoscopy group (5.2 +/- 2.6 v 6.4 +/- 2.9 days; P < 0.001) as was length of hospital stay (6.3 +/- 1.9 v 7.7 +/- 2.4 days; P < 0.0001). The most common complication between the two groups was hemorrhage, occurring in 27 (28.1%) patients in the laparoscopy group and 54 patients (29.3%) in the open group. Of the 19 urinary tract infections observed between the two groups, 18 occurred in the open group as well as all 9 cases of urinary sepsis. Conclusions: LSP offers advantages over OSP in terms of shorter catheter time, shorter hospital length of stay, and fewer urinary tract infections.
引用
收藏
页码:129 / 133
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [2] The morbidity of laparoscopic versus open simple prostatectomy
    Barret, Eric
    Rozet, Francois
    Cathelineau, Xavier
    Vallancien, Guy
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2006, 20 : A271 - A271
  • [3] The morbidity of laparoscopic versus open simple prostatectomy
    Rozet, F
    Bracq, A
    Harmon, JD
    Braud, G
    Cathelineau, X
    Vallancien, G
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2006, 175 (04): : 489 - 489
  • [4] Laparoscopic Versus Open Simple Prostatectomy: An Evaluation of Morbidity Editorial Comment
    McCullough, T. C.
    Heldwein, F. L.
    Soon, S. J.
    Galiano, M.
    Barret, E.
    Cathelineau, X.
    Prapotnich, D.
    Vallancien, G.
    Rozet, F.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2009, 182 (01): : 152 - 152
  • [5] Laparoscopic versus open simple prostatectomy: A comparative study
    Baumert, H
    Ballaro, A
    Dugardin, F
    Kaisary, AV
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2006, 175 (05): : 1691 - 1694
  • [6] Morbidity of laparoscopic extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal radical prostatectomy verus open retropubic radical prostatectomy
    Remzi, A
    Klingler, HC
    Tinzi, MV
    Fong, YK
    Lodde, M
    Kiss, B
    Marberger, M
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2005, 48 (01) : 83 - 89
  • [7] Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
    Janetschek, G
    Montorsi, F
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY SUPPLEMENTS, 2006, 5 (03) : 377 - 384
  • [8] Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
    Sethia, Krishna K.
    ANNALS OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF ENGLAND, 2007, 89 (02) : 108 - 108
  • [9] Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: Urodynamic evaluation of vesicourethral function
    Matsukawa, Yoshihisa
    Hattori, Ryohei
    Yoshikawa, Yoko
    Ono, Yoshinari
    Gotoh, Momokazu
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2009, 16 (04) : 393 - 396
  • [10] Radical prostatectomy: Morbidity of the robotic versus the laparoscopic approach
    Rozet, Francois
    Barret, Eric
    Cathelineau, Xavier
    Vallancien, Guy
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2006, 20 : A218 - A218