腹膜外径路腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术(附65例报告)

目的:探讨腹膜外径路腹腔镜PCa根治术的初步体会。方法:经腹膜外径路进行腹腔镜PCa根治术65例。结果:64例(98.5%)成功,手术时间100～440min,平均172min。出血量150～800ml,平均340ml,7例(10.8%)患者输红细胞悬液2～4U。1例术中发生直肠损伤,2例术后发生尿外渗。6例(9.2%)患者术后病理提示切缘阳性。58例(89.2%)患者术后3个月尿控良好。结论:腹膜外径路腹腔镜PCa根治术是安全、可行的。且因避免了术中、术后对腹腔内肠管的干扰,降低了手术并发症,利于术后患者的恢复,值得在临床推广应用。     

经腹膜外腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术

目的 探讨腹膜外腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术的手术方法和疗效. 方法 2003年2月至2008年6月对91例前列腺癌患者行腹膜外腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术,患者均经病理检查确诊,Gleason评分≤8分,盆腔CT、MR和核素全身骨扫描示无盆腔淋巴结、精囊和骨转移,手术经腹膜外顺行径路切除前列腺,标本自脐下切口处取出.术中行盆腔淋巴结活检32例,行保留性神经前列腺癌根治11例. 结果 平均手术时间173(105～270)min,平均出血量315(110～1200)ml.术中直肠损伤2例,术后病理检查切缘阳性11例.术后出现不同程度尿失禁19例.其中术后3个月内恢复尿控18例,真性尿失禁1例.32例行盆腔淋巴结活检者均未发现阳性淋巴结,11例保留性神经患者中术后随访勃起功能良好5例.87例随访3～30个月,无尿道狭窄,术后28个月出现生化复发3例.结论腹膜外腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术安全有效,手术创伤小、恢复快,与开放前列腺癌根治术效果相近.     

Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Results after 50 cases

INTRODUCTION: After an initial experience using transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy as described by Vallancien and Guillonneau, we developed a pure extraperitoneal approach. This approach seems more comparable to the open technique and avoid potential risks of specific complications due to the transperitoneal approach. We evaluated the perioperative parameters (blood loss, operating time, transfusion rate) and postoperative results (oncological results, continence and potency) after our first 50 cases. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Between September 1999 and September 2000, we performed 50 laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. On average, patients were 63.3 years old (range 47-71), had preoperative mean PSA values of 9.14 ng/ml (1.1-23). Median Gleason score was 6 (4-10) with 2.5 (1-6) positive biopsies for a mean prostate volume of 40 cm(3) (17.5-95.0). Clinical stage was T1, T2a, T2b and T3 in 46.3, 41.5, 9.8 and 2.4% of the cases, respectively. We used a pure extraperitoneal approach and we performed a descending technique starting with the dissection at the bladder neck. The seminal vesicles dissection is comparable to the open approach. RESULTS: 42 extraperitoneal and 8 transperitoneal procedures were performed (2 in the initial experience, 3 because of previous abdominal surgery and 3 because of incidental peritoneal opening). Mean operative time was 317 min, mean blood loss 680 cm(3), transfusion rate of 13%. 1 patient/50 was converted to an open procedure. Pathological stage was pT1a, pT2a, pT2b, pT2c, pT3a and pT3b in 2.2, 8.5, 42.5, 2.2, 34 and 10.6% of cases, respectively. Positive surgical margins were observed in 22% of cases. The potency rate after neurovascular bilateral bundle preservation was 43% at 3 months (n = 7) and 67% at 6 months and (n = 6) without any further treatment. The continence rate (no pad) was 39% at 3 months and 85% at 6 months. Detectable postoperative PSA at 3 month was observed in 2 patients only. Two major complications occurred: one acute transient renal failure one uretrorectal fistula at day 20. CONCLUSIONS: The extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy results seem comparable to transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy or open surgery. This approach is reproducible and seems to avoid the potential risks of intraperitoneal injury. Long-term follow up and comparative series are however necessary to further evaluate these new techniques.     

Comparison of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using match-pair analysis

PURPOSE: Based on the experience of 1000 cases of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, we compared the operative parameters of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches in match-paired patient groups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the charts of 53 consecutive patients who underwent selectively extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy comparing it to 53 match-paired patients treated by transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The patients were matched for age, PSA (ng/ml), prostate volume (g), pathologic stage, Gleason score, presence of pelvic lymph node dissection and type of nerve-sparing technique. Perioperative parameters (operating time, blood donation, complications) and postoperative results (duration and amount of analgesic treatment, catheterization time) as well as oncological (surgical margin status) and functional (continence rate) results were analyzed. RESULTS: Patients were 62.9 +/- 5.5 versus 62.9 +/- 5.4 years old, had 27.5 +/- 3.5 kg/m2 versus 26.7 +/- 2.8 kg/m2 body mass indices in the extraperitoneal and transperitoneal groups, respectively. Preoperative mean PSA and prostate volume were 7.4 +/- 4.6 ng/ml and 41.8 +/- 16.3 g in the extraperitoneal, 7.6 +/- 3.8 ng/ml and 42.0 +/- 14.8 g in the transperitoneal group. Pathologic stages were T2a in 12 vs. 13, T2b in 21 vs. 20, T2c in 7 vs. 8, T3a in 11 vs. 10 and T3b in 2 vs. 2 patients for both groups. Overall 211.8 vs. 197.1 minutes mean operative time (p = 0.328) and 21.9 +/- 15.4 mg vs. 26.3 +/- 15.8 mg narcotic analgesic requirements (p = 0.111) did not differ significantly in both groups. However, mean operating time was significantly longer in the extraperitoneal group when performing pelvic lymphadenectomy (244.5 vs. 209.6 minutes, p = 0.017). There was no statistical difference of complication rate (4% vs. 2%) and median catheter time (7 vs. 7 days), positive surgical margins (22.6% vs. 20.7%) and 12 months continence (86.7% vs. 84.9%). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between the extraperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches using the Heilbronn technique regarding all important parameters. In addition to the preference and experience of the individual surgeon, previous abdominal surgery, gross obesity and requirement of simultaneous inguinal hernia repair may be considered as selective indications for extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.     

经腹膜外途径腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术23例观察

目的探讨经腹膜外途径腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术(laparoscopic radical prostatectomy,LRP)治疗局限性前列腺癌的手术方法和临床疗效。方法回顾性分析23例前列腺癌患者行经腹膜外途径腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术的临床资料。23例患者病理诊断均为前列腺癌,TNM分期T1N0M0 9例,T2N0M0 14例,Gleason评分均≤7分。结果 23例手术均获得成功,无中转开放手术。手术时间105³00 min,平均150 min;术中出血量120300 min,平均150 min;术中出血量120⁸00 mL,平均240 mL。术后留置尿管时间16800 mL,平均240 mL。术后留置尿管时间16²2 d,平均18 d。3例出现轻度尿失禁,经提肛等辅助治疗,3个月后无真性尿失禁发生。术后病理报告示标本切缘阳性1例,术后行全激素阻断治疗3个月。术后前列腺特异性抗原(prostate specific antigen,P S A)均<4.0 ng/mL。1例因其他原因死亡。术后随访322 d,平均18 d。3例出现轻度尿失禁,经提肛等辅助治疗,3个月后无真性尿失禁发生。术后病理报告示标本切缘阳性1例,术后行全激素阻断治疗3个月。术后前列腺特异性抗原(prostate specific antigen,P S A)均<4.0 ng/mL。1例因其他原因死亡。术后随访3¹2个月,无生化复发。结论经腹膜外腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术具有创伤小,出血少,恢复快,并发症少等优点,是一种安全可行的手术方式,值得临床推广。     

经腹膜外腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术（附9例报告）

目的探讨经腹膜外腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术的手术方法和疗效。方法我科自2006年1月至2008年10月对9例前列腺癌患者行经腹膜外途径腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术,手术经腹膜外路径顺行切除前列腺,切开膀胱颈部前先以1-0可吸收线缝扎背血管复合体。结果9例手术均获得成功,无中转开放手术。手术时间180-510min,平均322min,术中出血量200-1500ml,平均433ml,术后48h内胃肠功能恢复,术后2～3d下床活动,无直肠损伤和吻合口尿漏出现。标本切缘阳性1例。1例患者术后半年仍有轻度尿失禁。其中7例患者随访5～33个月,未发现肿瘤局部和生化复发和远处转移;术后3个月前列腺特异性抗原0～0．1ng／ml。结论经腹膜外腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术是一种安全有效的手术方法,手术创伤小,患者恢复快,腹腔并发症少。但该手术难度较大,需要具有丰富腹腔镜操作经验的医生完成。     

经腹膜外途径腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术

目的 探讨经腹膜外途径腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术的临床效果及安全性. 方法 临床局限性前列腺癌患者15例,均行经腹膜外途径腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术.术前平均总PSA 8.1ng/ml,平均Gleason评分5.7±1.3.采用切开腹白线的"北京医院建立腹膜外操作间隙技术"建立腹膜外间隙.手术过程中分离,切割和止血均采用超声刀技术.记录患者手术时间,估计术中出血量、术中并发症、留置引流管时间、术后疼痛指数、术后住院时间、术后病理和PSA等临床资料,并对结果进行分析. 结果 15例手术14例腹腔镜完成,1例因吻合困难中转开放手术.手术时间(316±74)min;术中估计出血量(408±362)ml.5例(33%)患者接受了输血,无直肠及输尿管损伤.术后第1和2天疼痛指数分别为2.3和1.4分.术后留置导尿(14.1±2.9)d,平均住院时间(19.5±4.9)d.术后Gleason评分5.7±1.8.标本切缘阳性2例(13%).病理检查未发现淋巴结转移病例.随访1～12个月,完全控尿10例(67%),PSA<0.2 ng/ml 12例.结论 经腹膜外途径腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术是一种安全可行的局限性前列腺癌的手术方式.     

经腹膜外腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术9例临床分析

目的:探讨经腹膜外腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术的手术方法和疗效。方法:回顾分析我院为9例患者经腹膜外行腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术的临床资料,术中重视神经血管束、前列腺癌结节解剖位置、膀胱颈部及尿道的处理。结果:9例手术均获成功。手术时间280~600m in,平均(364±97)m in,出血220~600m l,平均(372±122)m l。本组无切缘阳性病例,无大出血和直肠损伤等严重并发症发生。术后暂时性尿失禁者均在3个月内完全康复。8例3个月后阴茎勃起正常。结论:腹腔镜前列腺癌根治性术是一种相对完全、微创、并发症少、术后康复快的手术方法。     

Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective evaluation of 600 cases

PURPOSE: We report our experience with the extraperitoneal approach to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. We describe the technique, clinical and oncological results, and functional outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From February 2002, to March 2004, 600 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies were performed by an extraperitoneal approach and evaluated prospectively. RESULTS: A total of 599 extraperitoneal procedures were performed successfully. Mean operative time was 173 minutes. Mean operative blood loss was 380 cc. The transfusion rate was 1.2%. The major and minor complications rate was 2.3% and 9.2%, respectively. The reoperation rate was 1.7%. Mean hospital stay was 6.3 days. Pathological stage was pT2 and pT3 in 72% and 28% of cases, respectively. Mean Gleason score was 7. The overall positive margin rate was 17.7% (14.6% and 25.6% of pT2 and pT3 tumors, respectively). Median followup was 12 months. Of the patients 95% had prostate specific antigen less than 0.2 ng/ml. Patients were evaluated by a self-questionnaire sent by mail before and after surgery (International Continence Society and International Index of Erectile Function-5). At a median followup of 12 months 84% of the patients were continent (no pad), 7% used 1 precautionary pad and 7% needed 1 pad routinely. At a median followup of 6 months in preoperatively potent patients (International Index of Erectile Function-5 greater than 20) the postoperative erection and intercourse rate was 64% and 43%, respectively, in those with bilateral nerve bundle preservation. CONCLUSIONS: The extraperitoneal technique is a reliable approach to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.     

经脐单孔腹腔镜腹膜外前列腺癌根治术7例报告

目的：报告经脐腹膜外单孔腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术的初步经验。方法：20110年2～11月采用经脐单孔腹腔镜腹膜外前列腺癌根治术治疗经活检确诊为前列腺癌患者7例,采用“两环一套法”自制单孔腹腔镜开口器,手术器械包括预弯抓钳、吸引器、针持。其余为传统腹腔镜器械。在脐下缘取2．5cm长弧形切口,进入腹膜外问隙,置人开口器建立单孔腹腔镜手术工作通道,再依次行双侧盆腔淋巴结清扫、前列腺癌根治术,最后采用一针连续缝合法行膀胱颈尿道吻合。记录手术时间、失血量、输血量、并发症发生情况。术后第3、6个月随访,复查血清PSA,了解尿控情况和患者对手术美容效果的满意度。结果：手术时间210～420min,平均272min;术中失血量为50～500ml,平均170ml。2例患者术中需要输浓缩红细胞2～3U,余未输血。仅1例手术需要增加2个工作通道,余患者无中转开放手术或增加工作通道,无围手术期死亡及严重并发症的发生。所有患者排尿可控,仅最后1例患者夜间需预防性使用尿垫1块。术后切口瘢痕隐匿在脐部皱褶内,患者对切口美容效果很满意。结论：在合理选择患者的前提下,采用经脐单孔腹腔镜腹膜外前列腺癌根治术是安全可行的,美容效果很好。“两环一套法”自制开口器能够保证手术顺利实施,性价比高。短期随访显示肿瘤控制及尿控效果好,远期效果需待长期随访来证实。     

Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: early experience in Thailand

OBJECTIVE: The transperitoneal approach is the conventional technique for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. There are, however, several disadvantages of the approach, such as damage to intraperitoneal organs and long-term ileus. To prevent these complications, we propose an extraperitoneal approach that has been successfully used for open radical prostatectomy in treating patients with localized prostate cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (ELRP). The outcomes of ELRP and open radical prostatectomy were also assessed and compared. METHODS: There were two groups of patients with localized prostate cancer confirmed by transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Patients were included if they had no previous hormonal treatment and no previous transurethral prostatectomy. Group I comprised patients in whom open radical prostatectomy was performed between February 2001 and August 2005 ( n = 55). Group II comprised patients in whom ELRP was performed between December 2005 and October 2006 (n = 41). Early postoperative results, clinical outcomes and complications were analysed among the two groups using Chi-squared, t and Mann-Whitney tests. RESULTS: Group I and Group II did not show significant differences regarding age, clinical staging, hospitalization time, or pathological stage. Group II had a longer mean operative time than Group I (t test, p< 0.001). Median blood loss was significantly less in Group I (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.001). Group II also demonstrated shorter catheter removal time (Mann-Whitney test, p = 0.003). In Group II, there were two rectal complications, including rectal injury and rectal necrosis, which were treated laparoscopically and conservatively without long-term problems.CONCLUSION: With experience, ELRP is feasible with equal oncological outcomes to open radical prostatectomy. Although a certain disadvantage was presented by ELRP, the less invasive surgery and reduction in operative blood loss were major advantages. It is suggested that a large and longitudinal trial be conducted to investigate the effectiveness of such an approach in managing functional outcomes.     

经腹膜外途径腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术(附5例报告)

目的:探讨经腹膜外途径腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术的临床体会。方法:采用经腹膜外途径对5例确诊为局限性前列腺癌的患者施行腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术,手术切除前列腺、精囊、输精管的壶腹以及膀胱颈的一部分,后行膀胱尿道吻合。结果:5例手术均获得成功,手术时间270~420 m in,平均350 m in,术中出血量250~600 m l,平均480 m l,术后48 h内胃肠功能恢复,术后2~3 d下床活动,术后住院7~12 d,平均8.5 d。术后随访3~8个月,无尿失禁,3例术前性功能正常的患者,2例术后可有满意的性生活。1例出现膀胱尿道吻合口狭窄,定期尿道扩张,排尿通畅。结论:经腹膜外途径腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术创伤小、对肠道无干扰、患者术后恢复快,可以成为治疗局限性前列腺癌的较好方法。     

C.R.P.C.四步法腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术的安全性和疗效分析

目的探讨经腹膜外途径C.R.P.C.四步法腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术治疗局限性前列腺癌的安全性和疗效。方法回顾性分析2015年4月至2017年12月同济医院收治的102例前列腺癌患者的病例资料。年龄(67±5)岁。术前总PSA值(45.32±18.33)ng/ml。前列腺体积(42±12)cm^3。102例均行磁共振检查和前列腺穿刺活检确诊为前列腺癌,临床分期cT1c^cT3b期。102例均在全麻下行经腹膜外途径腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术。术中采用C.R.P.C.四步法,即控制背深静脉复合体(control dorsal deep venous complex,C);识别前列腺膀胱交界面、精囊层面、狄氏间隙层面3个解剖层面(recognize three anatomical layers,R);保留尿道括约肌和膀胱颈(preserve urethral sphincter and bladder neck,P);连续行尿道吻合(continuous anastomosis between urethra and bladder neck,C),特别注意3、5、7、9点方向4针。记录手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间和术后并发症。结果本组102例手术均顺利完成。手术时间平均92(55~156)min。出血量平均105(55~185)ml。无中转开放手术。1例(0.98%)术前中度贫血患者(血红蛋白65 g/L)术后予输血治疗。病理检查结果显示15例(14.70%)切缘阳性。术后1周内2例(1.96%)发生尿外渗,经牵拉尿管并延长尿管留置时间后恢复正常。术后随访(26.4±3.5)个月。术后6个月11例(10.78%)出现PSA复发;术后12个月2例发生Ⅰ~Ⅱ度尿失禁,1例发生排尿困难。结论C.R.P.C.四步法腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术易学易记,能够使初学者掌握根治性前列腺切除术的程序化手术操作步骤。本方法术后并发症少,肿瘤控制效果较好。     

The endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): technique and initial experience

Using the experiences of the extraperitoneal (endoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy and inguinal hernia repair) and the transperitoneal approach (laparoscopic radical prostatectomy), we developed a totally extraperitoneal approach to endoscopic radical prostatectomy. In view of the favourable short-term outcome, we describe the technique of totally extraperitoneal endoscopic radical prostatectomy (EERPE) as a now standardised procedure. After creating the preperitoneal space by balloon dissection, five trocars were placed in the hypogastrium, allowing immediate access to the space of Retzius. The surgical technique of EERPE replicates the steps of the classical retropubic descending radical prostatectomy with slight modifications. The procedure starts with exposing the Retzius space and pelvic lymph node dissection. After that, the endopelvic fascia and the puboprostatic ligaments are incised, followed by ligating the Santorini plexus. The actual prostate dissection is similar to the open descending approach: bladder neck dissection, freeing of the seminal vesicles, transsectioning of the prostatic vesicles (with or without preserving the neurovascular bundles) and, finally, apical dissection. A water-tight urethrovesical anastomosis is performed with interrupted sutures. There were 20 patients who underwent EERPE. Mean operating time was 170 min with no conversion. No major complications occurred. Only one patient required a blood transfusion. The catheter could be removed on postoperative day 6 (n = 17) or on postoperative day 12 (n = 3). Final pathologic evaluations were 4 stage pT2a, 10 stage pT2b, 5 stage pT3a, and 1 pT3b. Surgical margins were negative in 17 patients. By avoiding entry into the peritoneal cavity, therefore, obviating intra-abdominal complications, such as bowel injury, ileus, or intestinal adhesions, the extraperitoneal endoscopic access provides a safe and minimally invasive approach to the prostate, combining the advantages of minimally invasive laparoscopy and retropubic open prostatectomy.     

经腹膜外腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术的关键点及操作技巧（附33例报告）

目的：总结经腹膜外腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术治疗前列腺癌的手术经验和操作技巧.方法：2006年1月～2010年3月对33例前列腺癌患者行经腹膜外腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术,手术经腹膜外顺行路径切除前列腺,切开膀胱颈部前先以1-0可吸收线缝扎背血管复合体,采用单针连续吻合法进行膀胱与尿道的吻合.结果：33例手术均获得成功,无中转开放手术.手术时间120～575 min,平均234 min,术中出血量100～1500 ml,平均320 ml,术后48小时内胃肠功能恢复,术后1～2天下地活动,没有直肠损伤和吻合口尿漏出现.标本切缘阳性1例.2例术后出现轻度尿失禁.2例出现尿道狭窄.对其中31例患者随访3～51个月,未发现肿瘤局部和生化复发和远处转移;术后3个月前列腺特异性抗原0～0.1 μg/L.结论：经腹膜外腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术是一种安全有效的手术方法.熟悉前列腺局部解剖及熟练掌握各种腹腔镜下操作技术是手术成功的关键.     

Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: initial experience after 70 procedures

PURPOSE: After our initial experience with 70 transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomies we developed a totally extraperitoneal retropubic approach to radical prostatectomy using laparoscopic instruments. We report our initial experience with 70 endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 70 patients underwent endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. Mean patient age was 63.4 years (range 49 to 76). Mean preoperative prostate specific antigen was 12.48 ng./ml. (range 1.4 to 50.7). There were no specific selection criteria for the procedure. The steps of the procedure are preparation of the preperitoneal space with the help of a balloon trocar, trocar placement (a 3 x 5 and a 2 x 12 mm. port), pelvic lymph node dissection, exposure of the prostate and the bladder neck, incision of the endopelvic fascia, ligation of Santorini's plexus, bladder neck dissection, mobilization of the seminal vesicles, incision of Denonvilliers' fascia, sectioning of the prostatic pedicles with or without preservation of the neurovascular bundles, dissection of Santorini's plexus and apex, urethrovesical anastomosis with 7 to 9 interrupted sutures and removal of the specimen via an extraction bag. During the 70 endoscopic prostatectomies 11 hernia defects were treated in 9 patients concomitantly. RESULTS: There was no conversions and no re-interventions. Mean operative time was 155 minutes (range 90 to 260). One patient required transfusion with 2 units of blood cells. Pathological stage was pT2a in 19 patients, pT2b in 14, pT3a in 25, pT3b in 9 and pT4 in 3. Positive surgical margins were found in 2 of the 33 patients (6.1%) with pT2 tumors and in 13 of the 37 (35.1%) with pT3 and pT4 tumors. Postoperatively edema and hematoma of the penis in 10 cases was treated conservatively. Furthermore, 4 patients had asymptomatic lymphoceles, 1 required lymphocele drainage and 2 had partial obturator nerve paralysis, which resolved spontaneously. In 1 patient deep venous thrombosis developed. CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary results of this series are promising. Operative and perioperative morbidity was low. Functional results and oncological control were similar to the results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The data demonstrate that endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy can be performed with efficacy and results equal to those of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, while providing the benefits of a totally extraperitoneal approach. Therefore, totally endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy represents a technical improvement of laparoscopic technique because it completely obviates intra-abdominal complications and combines the advantages of minimally invasive laparoscopy and the retropubic open approach.     

腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术42例报告

目的:探讨腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术(laparoscopic radical prostatectomy,LRP)治疗局限性前列腺癌的可行性并总结临床体会。方法:回顾分析2008年12月至2011年3月为42例前列腺癌患者行腹膜外入路腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术的临床资料。结果:42例手术均获成功,无一例周围脏器损伤。手术时间120～250 min,平均170 min。术中出血量120～750 ml,平均260 ml,11例术中输血400～600 ml。术后住院21～23 d,平均22 d。拔除导尿管时间18～22 d,平均20 d。6例患者术后7天内发生尿漏,均经充分引流和牵拉尿管后痊愈。25例出现轻～中度尿失禁,经提肛等辅助治疗,4～12周后明显缓解或消失。术后病检:pT1c14例,pT212例,pT3a16例。术后PSA均<4.0 ng/ml。结论:经腹膜外入路行腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术可行、安全、有效,患者创伤小、康复快、并发症少,值得推广应用。     

经腹膜外腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术及其控尿技术

目的 探讨腹膜外途径腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术及其控尿技术的应用价值。方法 前列腺癌患者28例，年龄60～75岁，平均68岁。PSA0．7～23．6ng／ml。TNM分期：T1N0M011例，T2N0M015例，T3aN0M2例。均行腹膜外途径腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术。，术中充分剪开盆筋膜，分离至前列腺尖部，缝扎背血管复合体。分离膀胱颈部（前列腺交界处），横断并尽可能保护颈部括约肌。仔细观察盆底肌肉并于近端剪开前列腺尖部，尽可能保护盆底括约肌，最后缩小并重建膀胱颈口，间断吻合膀胱和尿道。结果 28例手术均顺利完成，手术时间180～380min，平均240min；出血量400～1200ml，平均800ml，15例出血量〉500ml者输血200～800ml。术后病理示切缘阴性25例，3例前列腺尖部切缘阳性者术后加用全雄激素阻断治疗3个月。患者均于术后2周拔除导尿管，3例术后出现轻度尿失禁，经提肛训练等辅助治疗3个月后好转，能自主排尿。术后3个月时PSA0．02～0．10ng／ml。随访1个月～2年，未见肿瘤复发转移。结论 腹腔镜下经腹膜外途径前列腺癌根治术安全、有效，值得临床推广。     

A direct comparison of robotic assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single institution experience

PURPOSE: We compared a single institution experience with radical prostatectomy using a pure laparoscopic technique vs a robotically assisted technique with regard to preoperative, intraoperative or postoperative parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From May 2003 to May 2005 we reviewed 133 consecutive patients who underwent extraperitoneal robot assisted radical prostatectomy and compared them to 133 match-paired patients treated with a pure extraperitoneal laparoscopic approach. The patients were matched for age, body mass index, previous abdominopelvic surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, prostate specific antigen, pathological stage and Gleason score. Preoperative, perioperative and postoperative data, including complications and oncological results, were analyzed between the 2 groups. RESULTS: The 2 groups were statistically similar with respect to age, body mass index, prostate specific antigen, Gleason score and clinical stage. No statistical differences were observed regarding operative time, estimated blood loss, hospital stay or bladder catheterization between the 2 groups. The transfusion rate was 3% and 9.8% for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, respectively (p = 0.03). Conversion from robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy was necessary in 4 cases. None of the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy cases required conversion to an open technique. The percentage of major complications was 6.0% vs 6.8%, respectively (p = 0.80). The overall positive margin rate was 15.8% vs 19.5% for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, respectively (p = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that the laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy is equivalent to the robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in the hands of skilled laparoscopic urological surgeons at our institution with respect to operative time, operative blood loss, hospital stay, length of bladder catheterization and positive margin rate.     

腹膜外入路经脐单孔腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术11例报告

目的 探讨使用自制多通道套管经脐切口行单孔腹腔镜下前列腺根治性切除术的方法及初步疗效.方法 2009年8月至2010年3月,对11例局限性前列腺癌患者行单孔腹腔镜下前列腺根治性切除术.经脐3 cm切口,腹膜前置入自制多通道套管,行单孔腹腔镜下双侧闭孔淋巴结清扫、前列腺根治性切除、膀胱尿道吻合术.膀胱尿道吻合采用活结套结连续缝合法完成.结果 1例增加1个套管,其余10例手术均顺利完成,无中转常规腹腔镜手术或开放手术.平均手术时间256(195～315)min,平均出血量90(20～180)ml,平均术后住院时间15.4(13～24)d,术后12 d拔除尿管.无术中并发症.术后1例出现膀胱尿道吻合口漏、2例出现淋巴漏、1例出现泌尿系感染,均经保守治疗治愈.病理报告11例手术标本切缘均阴性,清扫淋巴结阴性.患者平均随访7(3～11)个月,无肿瘤生化复发.结论 单孔腹腔镜下前列腺根治性切除术技术上可行,具有美观、微创、并发症少的特点,具有良好的短期功能和肿瘤控制效果,中长期疗效需进一步随诊观察.

Abstract：

Objective To present our initial experience in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy performed through an umbilical incision using a home-made multichannel port. Methods From August 2009 to March 2010, we performed single-port laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in 11 patients with localized prostate cancer. A home-made multichannel port was inserted extraperitoneally through a 3-cm umbilical incision. The single port extraperitoneal procedures included obturator fossa lymphadenectomy, radical prostatectomy and urethro-vesical anastomosis, while the urethro-vesical anastomosis was performed by a slip-knot running suture technique. Data were collected and analyzed prospectively. Results All cases were completed successfully, without conversion to a standard laparoscopic approach or open surgery except adding an additional port in one case. The average operative time was 256 minutes (range195-315), and the mean blood loss was 90 ml (range 20- 180), without any blood transfusion. The postoperative hospital stay was 15.4 days (range13- 24), and the Foley catheter was removed 12 days after surgery. No intraoperative complications occurred. One patient developed a vesico-rethralanastomosis leakage, 2 had lymphatic leakage and 1 had urinary tract infection,all of the cases were managed successfully with conservative treatment. Histopathological results showed negative surgical margine and negative lymph node dissection. All patients had no biochemical relapse after an average follow-up of 7 months. Conclusions Single-port laparoscopic radical prosta tectomy is feasible, cosmetic and minimally invasive with a low complication rate and good short-term outcome. Additional investigation is needed to evaluate the long-term safety and oncologic adequacy of this new approach.