The Canadian journal of urology · 2008
Robot-assisted Millin's retropubic prostatectomy: case series.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yuh Bertram, Laungani Rajesh, Perlmutter Adam, Eun Daniel, Peabody James O, Mohler James L, Stricker Hans, Guru Khurshid A
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVE: Simple prostatectomy continues to be an effective surgical option for patients with symptomatic high volume benign prostatic hyperplasia. Recent trends towards minimally invasive urologic surgery, in particular for prostate cancer, have created surgical alternatives with additional potential benefits. We report on the feasibility of robot-assisted retropubic prostatectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This series consists of three cases of simple prostatectomy performed through a robot-assisted retropubic (Millin) approach at two institutions. All patients had preoperative bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms with two patients presenting in urinary retention. Average preoperative transrectal ultrasound estimated prostate volume exceeded 300 cm3. All patients were ruled out for malignancy.
RESULTS: Average age for the patient group was 76.7 years with mean prostate specific antigen (PSA) of 25.1. Estimated blood loss averaged 558 ml (150-1125) and mean operative time was 211 minutes (178-230). One patient had a simultaneous inguinal hernia repair performed. The patient with the largest prostate required incision extension for removal of specimen. There were no acute intraoperative or perioperative complications. Mean hospital stay was 1.3 days and one patient required blood transfusion. Average adenoma weight was 301 grams (66-640). One patient developed bladder neck contracture several months postoperatively.
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted retropubic simple prostatectomy is a reasonable and safe alternative to an open technique. Faster recuperation and reduced blood loss are potential benefits to this approach. The longer operative time and extraction incision for very large prostates (>200 gms) may offset some of the advantages of the minimally invasive method.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This series consists of three cases of simple prostatectomy performed through a robot-assisted retropubic (Millin) approach at two institutions. All patients had preoperative bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms with two patients presenting in urinary retention. Average preoperative transrectal ultrasound estimated prostate volume exceeded 300 cm3. All patients were ruled out for malignancy.
RESULTS: Average age for the patient group was 76.7 years with mean prostate specific antigen (PSA) of 25.1. Estimated blood loss averaged 558 ml (150-1125) and mean operative time was 211 minutes (178-230). One patient had a simultaneous inguinal hernia repair performed. The patient with the largest prostate required incision extension for removal of specimen. There were no acute intraoperative or perioperative complications. Mean hospital stay was 1.3 days and one patient required blood transfusion. Average adenoma weight was 301 grams (66-640). One patient developed bladder neck contracture several months postoperatively.
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted retropubic simple prostatectomy is a reasonable and safe alternative to an open technique. Faster recuperation and reduced blood loss are potential benefits to this approach. The longer operative time and extraction incision for very large prostates (>200 gms) may offset some of the advantages of the minimally invasive method.