European urology · 2006
A pelvic drain can often be avoided after radical retropubic prostatectomy--an update in 552 cases.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Araki Motoo, Manoharan Murugesan, Vyas Sachin, Nieder Alan M, Soloway Mark S
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The routine placement of a pelvic drain following radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) may not be required. We describe our experience in 552 consecutive RRPs to emphasise the safety of this approach and explain our rationale for avoiding a drain when possible.
METHODS: RRP was performed in 552 consecutive patients with clinically localised adenocarcinoma of the prostate between January 2002 and June 2005. Clinical and pathologic information was documented for each patient. After the prostate was removed and the anastomotic sutures tied, the bladder was gently filled with approximately 50 ml of saline through the urethral catheter. If there was no leak, a drain was not placed.
RESULTS: A drain was not placed in 419 (76%) of the 552 patients. We compared the postoperative complication rates in those with (D+) and without (D-) a drain. There were 27 (5%) immediate postoperative complications and no significant difference between the two groups (D+, 6%; D-, 5%; p=0.629): three (1%) patients who did not have a drain had a urinoma, one (1%) who had a drain had a lymphocele, and two (2%) who had a drain had a small pelvic haematoma.
CONCLUSIONS: If the bladder neck is preserved or meticulously reconstructed, there may be little extravasation and, thus, routine drainage is unnecessary. Our 4-year experience indicates that morbidity is not increased by omitting a drain from the pelvic cavity after RRP in properly selected cases.
METHODS: RRP was performed in 552 consecutive patients with clinically localised adenocarcinoma of the prostate between January 2002 and June 2005. Clinical and pathologic information was documented for each patient. After the prostate was removed and the anastomotic sutures tied, the bladder was gently filled with approximately 50 ml of saline through the urethral catheter. If there was no leak, a drain was not placed.
RESULTS: A drain was not placed in 419 (76%) of the 552 patients. We compared the postoperative complication rates in those with (D+) and without (D-) a drain. There were 27 (5%) immediate postoperative complications and no significant difference between the two groups (D+, 6%; D-, 5%; p=0.629): three (1%) patients who did not have a drain had a urinoma, one (1%) who had a drain had a lymphocele, and two (2%) who had a drain had a small pelvic haematoma.
CONCLUSIONS: If the bladder neck is preserved or meticulously reconstructed, there may be little extravasation and, thus, routine drainage is unnecessary. Our 4-year experience indicates that morbidity is not increased by omitting a drain from the pelvic cavity after RRP in properly selected cases.