Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A · 2017
Robot-Assisted Extraperitoneal Radical Prostatectomy, Single Site Plus Two Model.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Lo Ing-Shiang, Lee Hsiang-Ying, Chou Yii-Her, Huang Chun-Nung, Wu Wen-Jeng, Yeh Hsin-Chih, Yang Kai Fu, Lee Cheng Hsueh, Li Ching-Chia
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To demonstrate a feasible procedure of robot-assisted extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy single site plus two model to overcome the limitation of traditional single-port laparoscopic surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All consecutive cases of robot-assisted extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy single site plus two model between November 2015 and April 2016 in our institution were included. We analyze the surgical and continence outcome.
RESULTS: Twenty cases were included in the analysis. All cases successfully completed without any necessity for conversion to a standard laparoscopic approach or open surgery. The average age is 64.3 ± 8.2 years and average body mass index is 24.3 ± 2.9 kg/m2. Eight focal positive margins (40%) (5 in T2 and 3 in T3a disease) were encountered and all occurred at the apex. For continence outcomes, 9 (45%) patients need average 0-1 pads/day and 2 (10%) patients need average 3 pads/day after surgery, but most recover after several months. No intraoperative complications or major postoperative complications were recorded, excluding blood transfusion in one case.
CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy single site plus two model is technically feasible and safe in our experience. It can also be performed in patients that have previously received intraperitoneal abdominal surgery using the extraperitoneal approach. We can take this procedure into account for minimal invasive surgical option.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All consecutive cases of robot-assisted extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy single site plus two model between November 2015 and April 2016 in our institution were included. We analyze the surgical and continence outcome.
RESULTS: Twenty cases were included in the analysis. All cases successfully completed without any necessity for conversion to a standard laparoscopic approach or open surgery. The average age is 64.3 ± 8.2 years and average body mass index is 24.3 ± 2.9 kg/m2. Eight focal positive margins (40%) (5 in T2 and 3 in T3a disease) were encountered and all occurred at the apex. For continence outcomes, 9 (45%) patients need average 0-1 pads/day and 2 (10%) patients need average 3 pads/day after surgery, but most recover after several months. No intraoperative complications or major postoperative complications were recorded, excluding blood transfusion in one case.
CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy single site plus two model is technically feasible and safe in our experience. It can also be performed in patients that have previously received intraperitoneal abdominal surgery using the extraperitoneal approach. We can take this procedure into account for minimal invasive surgical option.