Urology · 2020
Transvesical Versus Transabdominal - Which is the Best Approach to Bladder Diverticulectomy Using the Single Port Robotic System?
Клинический случайСравнительное исследованиеVideo-Audio MediaСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Gurung Pratik M, Witthaus Michael, Campbell Timothy, Rashid Hani H, Ghazi Ahmed E, Wu Guan, Joseph Jean V
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Application of the Single Port (SP) robotic platform [Intuitive] is expanding. Using 2 illustrative examples of bladder diverticula (BD) resulting from bladder outflow obstruction (BOO), we describe in this video our techniques utilizing SP to treat BD via Extravesical (EV#1) and Transvesical (TV#2) approaches.
METHODS: In EV#1, a 56-year old, with BOO due to benign prostate enlargement (BPE) of a 30 mL prostate, and a 5 cm BD, was treated with RABD-SP. A subumbilical SP access was used to approach and excise the BD in an EV fashion. The BPE was treated with Rezum. A 16 Fr urethral catheter was placed. In TV#2, a 67-year old, with urinary retention due to a 55 mL BPE and a 6 cm BD in the right posterolateral aspect adjacent the ureteric orifice, was treated with RABD-SP using a Gelport (no additional assistant ports). An open cut-down was performed onto a prefilled bladder and secured onto the abdominal wall with stay sutures. After draining the bladder, a Gelport was introduced into the bladder for SP docking with pneumo-vesical insufflation. Intravesical (inside-out) excision of the BD was performed with protection of the adjacent right ureteric orifice with an open access ureteral catheter. Utilizing the TV access, a simple prostatectomy was performed. A 22 Fr, 3-way catheter was placed at the end.
RESULTS: For EV#1 and TV#2, estimated blood losses were 5 and 100 mL, length stay was 1 day in both, without any immediate perioperative complications. Both patients had successful trials of void on postoperative day 7 and 9, respectively.
CONCLUSION: RABD-SP can be customized to treat BD, via transabdominal (extravesical) or transvesical (with bladder pneumo-insufflation) approaches, and combined with different BOO treatments (Rezum or simple prostatectomy, for instance), in a patient-specific personalized manner.
METHODS: In EV#1, a 56-year old, with BOO due to benign prostate enlargement (BPE) of a 30 mL prostate, and a 5 cm BD, was treated with RABD-SP. A subumbilical SP access was used to approach and excise the BD in an EV fashion. The BPE was treated with Rezum. A 16 Fr urethral catheter was placed. In TV#2, a 67-year old, with urinary retention due to a 55 mL BPE and a 6 cm BD in the right posterolateral aspect adjacent the ureteric orifice, was treated with RABD-SP using a Gelport (no additional assistant ports). An open cut-down was performed onto a prefilled bladder and secured onto the abdominal wall with stay sutures. After draining the bladder, a Gelport was introduced into the bladder for SP docking with pneumo-vesical insufflation. Intravesical (inside-out) excision of the BD was performed with protection of the adjacent right ureteric orifice with an open access ureteral catheter. Utilizing the TV access, a simple prostatectomy was performed. A 22 Fr, 3-way catheter was placed at the end.
RESULTS: For EV#1 and TV#2, estimated blood losses were 5 and 100 mL, length stay was 1 day in both, without any immediate perioperative complications. Both patients had successful trials of void on postoperative day 7 and 9, respectively.
CONCLUSION: RABD-SP can be customized to treat BD, via transabdominal (extravesical) or transvesical (with bladder pneumo-insufflation) approaches, and combined with different BOO treatments (Rezum or simple prostatectomy, for instance), in a patient-specific personalized manner.