Anatomic Bladder Neck Preservation During Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Description of Technique and Outcomes

被引:135
|
作者
Freire, Marcos P. [1 ]
Weinberg, Aaron C. [1 ]
Lei, Yin [1 ]
Soukup, Jane R. [2 ]
Lipsitz, Stuart R. [2 ]
Prasad, Sandip M. [1 ]
Korkes, Fernando [4 ]
Lin, Tiffany [1 ]
Hu, Jim C. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Harvard Univ, Sch Med, Brigham & Womens Hosp, Div Urol Surg, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[2] Harvard Univ, Sch Med, Brigham & Womens Hosp, Ctr Surg & Publ Hlth, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[3] Dana Farber Canc Inst, Lank Ctr Genitourinary Oncol, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[4] ABC, Fac Med, Sao Paulo, Brazil
关键词
Radical prostatectomy; Continence; Outcomes; Robotic surgical technique; POSITIVE SURGICAL MARGINS; RETROPUBIC PROSTATECTOMY; INITIAL-EXPERIENCE; URINARY CONTINENCE; IMPACT; IDENTIFICATION; DISSECTION; PLEXUS; CANCER; ENERGY;
D O I
10.1016/j.eururo.2009.09.017
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
Background: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) has been rapidly adopted despite a daunting learning curve with bladder neck dissection as a challenging step for newcomers. Objective: To describe an anatomic, reproducible technique of bladder neck preservation (BNP) and associated perioperative and long-term outcomes. Design, settings, and participants: From September 2005 to May 2009, data from 619 consecutive RALP were prospectively collected and compared on the basis of bladder neck dissection technique with 348 BNP and 271 standard technique (ST). Surgical procedure: RALP with BNP. Measurements: Tumor characteristics, perioperative complications, and postoperative urinary control were evaluated at 4, 12 and 24 months using (1) the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index (EPIC) urinary function scale scored from 0-100; and (2) continence defined as zero pads per day. Results and limitations: Mean age for BNP versus ST was 57.1 +/- 6.6 yr versus 58.9 +/- 6.7 yr (p = 0.033), while complication rates did not vary significantly by technique. Estimated blood loss was 183.7 +/- 95.8 ml versus 224.6 +/- 108 ml (p = 0.938) in men who underwent BNP versus ST. The overall positive margin rate was 12.8%, which did not differ at the prostate base for BNP versus ST (1.4% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.547). Mean urinary function scores for BNP versus ST at 4, 12, and 24 mo were 64.6 versus 57.2 (p = 0.037), 80.6 versus 79.0 (p = 0.495), and 94.1 versus 86.8 (p < 0.001). Similarly, BNP versus ST continence rates at 4, 12, and 24 mo were 65.6% versus 26.5% (p < 0.001), 86.4% versus 81.4% (p = 0.303), and 100% versus 96.1% (p = 0.308). Conclusions: BNP versus ST is associated with quicker recovery of urinary function and similar cancer control. (C) 2009 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:972 / 980
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Bladder neck preservation during classic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy - point of technique and preliminary results
    Chlosta, Piotr L.
    Drewa, Tomasz
    Jaskulski, Jaroslaw
    Dobruch, Jakub
    Varkarakis, John
    Borowka, Andrzej
    VIDEOSURGERY AND OTHER MINIINVASIVE TECHNIQUES, 2012, 7 (02) : 89 - 95
  • [32] Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: Functional and pathologic outcomes with interfascial nerve preservation
    Zorn, Kevin C.
    Gofrit, Ofer N.
    Orvieto, Marcelo A.
    Mikhail, Albert A.
    Zagaja, Gregory P.
    Shalhav, Arieh L.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2007, 51 (03) : 755 - 763
  • [33] Respiratory gas exchange during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
    Lebowitz, Philip
    Yedlin, Adam
    Hakimi, A. Ari
    Bryan-Brown, Christopher
    Richards, Mahesan
    Ghavamian, Reza
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ANESTHESIA, 2015, 27 (06) : 470 - 475
  • [34] Outcomes assessment in men undergoing open retropubic radical prostatectomy, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy
    Kowalczyk, Keith J.
    Yu, Hua-yin
    Ulmer, William
    Williams, Stephen B.
    Hu, Jim C.
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2012, 30 (01) : 85 - 89
  • [35] Outcomes assessment in men undergoing open retropubic radical prostatectomy, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy
    Keith J. Kowalczyk
    Hua-yin Yu
    William Ulmer
    Stephen B. Williams
    Jim C. Hu
    World Journal of Urology, 2012, 30 : 85 - 89
  • [36] Encountering "Dropped" Gallstones During Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy
    Brubaker, Lisa
    Allgaeuer, Michael
    Turkbey, Baris
    Pinto, Peter
    Sidana, Abhinav
    UROLOGY, 2017, 103 : E11 - E12
  • [37] Pathologic Outcomes during the Learning Curve for Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy EDITORIAL COMMENT
    Mitre, Anuar Ibrahim
    INTERNATIONAL BRAZ J UROL, 2008, 34 (02): : 163 - 163
  • [38] Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in patients with penile implants: Technique and outcome
    Palmer, Kenneth J.
    Coughlin, Geoff
    Shah, Ketul
    Patel, Vipul R.
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2007, 21 : A228 - A229
  • [39] Predictors of costs for robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
    Bolenz, Christian
    Gupta, Amit
    Roehrborn, Claus G.
    Lotan, Yair
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2011, 29 (03) : 325 - 329
  • [40] Radical Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: A Daycase Procedure
    Goonewardene, Sanchia S.
    Rowe, Edward W.
    JOURNAL OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC & ADVANCED SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, 2014, 24 (11): : 804 - 805