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.     

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。     

机器人辅助腹腔镜经腹腔与腹膜外单孔前列腺癌根治术围手术期护理的对比研究

目的:回顾性分析机器人辅助腹腔镜经腹腔与经腹膜外单孔前列腺癌根治术治疗前列腺癌的围手术期护理的疗效,探讨后者的护理优势。方法:回顾性分析四川省人民医院机器人微创中心2019年7月—2020年6月接受机器人辅助腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术的患者142例,其中行机器人辅助腹腔镜经腹腔前列腺癌根治术82例,行机器人辅助腹腔镜经腹膜外单孔前列腺癌根治术60例,所有手术均为同一术者完成。术后随访比较两组患者的手术切口护理情况、引流管拔除时间、疼痛评分、术后住院天数、术后排气时间、尿管留置时间、控尿训练的效果、切口愈合情况及美观度、术后随访患者满意度。结果:142例手术均在机器人辅助腹腔镜下顺利完成,无中转开放。经腹腔组与经腹膜外单孔两组手术切口护理切口感染3例(3.7%)、1例(1.7%),差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);引流管拔除时间分别为4.8(3~13)d和2.8(1~10)d,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);术后疼痛评分分别为2.1(1~9)分和1.9(1~8)分,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后住院天数分别为9.3(8.0~16.0)d和8.4(7.0~13.0)d,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后排气时间分别为1.3(0.65~3.0)d和3.4(2.0~7.0)d,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);术后尿管留置时间分别为9.0(7.0~21.0)d和6.0(4.0~8.0)d,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组术后即刻、3个月、6个月尿控例数分别为8例(9.8%)、51例(62.2%)、62例(75.6%)和17例(28.3%)、43例(71.7%)、54例(90.0%),差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组总切口长度分别为12.1(10.4~13.4)cm和5.6(5.0~6.0)cm,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);术后满意度分别为90%和100%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:机器人辅助腹腔镜腹膜外单孔前列腺癌根治术围手术期护理具有恢复时间更短、尿控缓解率更高、切口美观整洁、术后满意度更高的优势,更有利于术后护理工作的开展。     

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.     

经腹与经腹膜外腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术的效果比较

目的 比较经腹与经腹膜外途径腹腔镜下手术治疗前列腺癌的临床效果.方法前列腺癌患者33例行腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术,其中经腹21例,经腹膜外12例.对2组患者手术时间、术中出血量、术中并发症、肠功能恢复时间、术后住院时间、术后并发症等资料进行比较分析.结果 33例手术均成功.经腹与经腹膜外2组手术时间分别为(299±46)和(309±64)min,出血量分别为(618±448)和(677±469)ml,2组比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).经腹组术中发生大出血3例、膀胱损伤2例、单侧输尿管损伤1例,经腹膜外组术中发生大出血1例、闭孔神经损伤1例、腹膜损伤1例、膀胱三角损伤1例.2组术后留置导尿时间分别为(14.6±3.8)和(12.3±2.9)d,肠功能恢复时间分别为(2.7±0.7)和(2.1±0.5)d,术后住院时间分别为(17.0±3.6)d和(11.2±3.5)d,2组比较差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术经腹膜外比经腹途径具有视野清晰、对腹腔器官影响小、术后恢复快、术后住院短等优点.     

Comparison of early oncologic results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach

PURPOSE: Compare the early oncological results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy performed by either an extraperitoneal or a transperitoneal approach. METHODS: 330 consecutive men underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer, the first 165 by transperitoneal approach, and the last 165 by extraperitoneal approach. Clinical stage, serum PSA, Gleason score of biopsy were recorded, as well as operating time, surgical and medical complications, blood loss, length of hospital stay and catheterization time. The weight of the specimen, pathological stage (1997 TNM classification) and status of the surgical margins were noted. The Fisher test as well as the chi2-test were used for statistical analysis. Differences were considered significant when p < 0.05. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of preoperative characteristics except for Gleason score of the biopsies which was higher in the extraperitoneal group (p < 0.0001). The operating time was longer with the transperitoneal approach (248.5 min vs. 220.0 min, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in transfusion rate (1.2% vs. 5.4%, transperitoneal vs. extraperitoneal, respectively, p = 0.6). There was no difference in hospital stay, medical and surgical complications. Respectively, in the transperitoneal and extraperitoneal groups, there were 108 and 88 pT2 tumors. There were no differences in terms of positive surgical margins between the two groups, 23% and 29.7% (p = 0.21) overall, 13.0% and 17.0% (p = 0.42) in pT2 tumors and 43.6% and 44.7% (p = 0.99) in pT3 tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Extraperitoneal approach offers the same early oncological results as transperitoneal approach with a shorter operative time.     

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.     

经腹膜外机器人辅助腹腔镜治疗大体积前列腺癌一例报道

2019年12月四川省人民医院收治1例80岁大体积前列腺癌患者.MRI提示前列腺体积200cm 3,前列腺周围叶病变,考虑肿瘤占位可能性大,预计分期T3,且前列腺增生伴多发结节形成.影像学检查提示未见转移征象.因患者对术后尿控功能要求较高,又属高龄患者,签署知情同意书后行经腹膜外机器人辅助腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术,以探讨经腹膜外机器人辅助腹腔镜治疗大体积(>100ml)前列腺癌的疗效及安全性.手术进展顺利,用时220min,术中出血300ml,术中未发生任何并发症,术后12d拔除尿管后患者即刻控尿.结果表明,经腹膜外机器人辅助腹腔镜治疗大体积前列腺癌是安全、有效的,并在保护患者尿控及缩短住院时间方面具有优势.但远期疗效需进一步随访及扩大样本量再进行比较.     

腹膜外径路腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术(附12例报告)

目的探讨腹膜外途径腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术的临床效果。方法回顾性分析总结2009年5月至2011年7月经腹膜外径路进行腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术患者12例,年龄60～75岁,平均年龄68岁。血清前列腺特异性抗原(prostate specific antigen,PSA)为0.7～23.6ng/ml。TNM分期T1N0M08例,T2N0M03例,T3aN0M01例。所有患者均于术前行前列腺穿刺活组织检查,证实为前列腺癌。结果 12例患者均顺利完成手术,手术时间为130～360min,平均270min;术中出血量为150～900ml,平均390ml,1例患者术中输血。术后病理检查结果显示肿瘤切缘为阳性的2例患者术后加用全雄激素阻断治疗3个月。术后留置尿管时间14～22d,平均18.6d,无直肠损失病例,3例术后出现轻度尿失禁的患者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PSA为0.02～0.10ng/ml,术后随访8例,随访时间为3～24个月,未发现肿瘤局部复发和远处转移。结论腹膜外径路腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术视野清晰、创伤小、恢复快,是一种安全、有效的治疗方法,值得临床推广。     

The impact of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy on the outcome of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a matched pair analysis

PURPOSE: We evaluated the effect of androgen ablation treatment on laparoscopic radical prostatectomy operative and postoperative parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 50 patients (group 1) on neoadjuvant androgen deprivation, followed by laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, were compared to 50 (group 2) without any treatment who were matched for prostate volume, laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy, nerve sparing procedure, surgical access type and pathological stage. We analyzed operative time, blood loss, intraoperative and postoperative complications, catheter time, procedure difficulty as scored by the surgeon and surgical margin status. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the neoadjuvant and nonneoadjuvant groups with respect to mean operative time +/- SD (228.6 +/- 62.9 vs 219.4 +/- 65.1 minutes), mean blood loss (667.6.1 +/- 217.1 vs 729.8 +/- 285.1 ml) and median catheter time (7 vs 7.5 days). We also found no difference related to the complication rate. Ten of 50 prostate dissections (20%) in group 1 were classified as difficult, whereas in group 2 only 4 of 50 (8%) were scored as difficult (p = 0.084). The positive surgical margin rates did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference with respect to operative or postoperative parameters in patients undergoing neoadjuvant androgen ablation therapy compared to controls. At centers where there is experience laparoscopic radical prostatectomy can be safely performed in patients who have undergone neoadjuvant hormonal therapy.     

国产单孔蛇形臂机器人手术系统在前列腺癌根治术中的初步应用

目的探讨国产单孔蛇形臂机器人手术系统用于前列腺癌根治术的安全性和可行性。 方法2021年10月至2022年4月,海军军医大学第一附属医院、南京医科大学第二附属医院、浙江大学医学院附属第一医院采用国产单孔蛇形臂机器人手术系统完成前列腺癌根治术17例,记录患者一般情况、肿瘤学指标、手术入路、手术时间、操作时间、术中出血量、辅助孔数量、围术期并发症、病理结果、术后一个月PSA及尿控情况等指标。 结果患者平均年龄（70±7）岁,平均BMI （24.8±2.7） kg/m²,术前平均PSA 11.9（6.6） ng/ml,Gleason评分6分者7例,7分者10例。17例手术均顺利完成,其中经腹腔入路10例,经腹膜外入路7例。5例手术为纯单孔术式,12例手术增加一枚12 mm辅助通道。平均手术时间（210±63）min,主刀医师上机操作时间（172±52）min,术中出血量（115±92）ml,围手术期无输血、肠道损伤、漏尿、发热、切口愈合不良等并发症。术后病理提示Gleason评分6分者4例,7分者12例,9分者1例;T₂期14例,T₃期3例;切缘阳性者4例（23.5%）。术后1个月平均PSA 0.01（0.074） ng/ml,12例患者尿控满意（71%）。 结论采用国产单孔蛇形臂机器人手术系统可安全、有效的开展经腹腔和经腹膜外的前列腺癌根治术。     

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Only at centers of expertise

ObjectivesTo present and evaluate our experience and initial results in radical laparoscopic prostatectomy which we have been using for two and an half years in our General Hospital (covering a total population of 200.000 inhabitants).Material and MethodsBetween December 2002 and August 2005, were selected 26 patients for radical laparoscopic prostatectomy (25 transperitoneal and 1 extraperitoneal). Mean age was 62.3 ± 5.3 years (range 52-69). Mean PSA level was 9.16 ± 4.20 ng/mL (range 5.26 to 24.3). Pre-operative classification was T1c in 10 patients (38.4%), T2a in 8 (30.8%) and T2b in 8. Mean Gleason Score was 6 ± 0.8 (range 4-7). Three patients had undergone preoperatively neo-adjuvant hormonal blockage (11.5%). Simultaneous bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy was performed in two patients. In no case did we consider a nerve sparing approach.ResultsThe procedure was accomplished in 20 patients. Mean follow-up was 12.4 ± 8.6 months (range 3 - 34). There was no perioperative mortality. Conversion to open surgery was required six times in the ten first cases but not thereafter. Mean operating time for the whole series was 303 ± 95 minutes (range 150-540) but with a distinct difference between the first fourteen and the last six cases: 332 ± 92,58 versus 236.6 ± 66.5 (p<0.02). Mean blood loss was 90.25 ± 46.5 ml. There were early postoperative complications in 4 patients (15.38%). Final pathological staging was: T2a in three patients (15%), T2b (50%) in 10, T3a (15%) in three and T3b (20%) in four. Positive margins were found in three cases (11.5%): T2b, T3a and T3b. Mean hospitalisation time was 4.7 ± 3.1 days. Provided there was no urinary leakage, the urinary catheter was removed at 12.7 ± 2.7 days. Full continence at three months was achieved in 17 of the patients (85%) who had undergone the full laparoscopic procedure.ConclusionsOur previous experience in other major laparoscopic procedures has allowed us to perform radical laparoscopic prostatectomy with a fast learning curve even in a setting of a relatively low population. Initial long term results seem similar to those achieved with conventional surgery.     

机器人辅助腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术经腹膜途径和腹膜外途径术后肺不张观察

应用肺部超声技术比较经腹膜途径机器人辅助腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术（transperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, T-RLRP）和腹膜外途径机器人辅助腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术（extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, E-RLRP）术后肺不张情况。 方法 采用随机数字表法将40例患者分为T-RLRP组和E-RLRP组,每组20例。两组患者分别于麻醉前（T0）,建立气腹和Trenderlenburg体位后60 min（T1）、120 min（T2）和气管拔管后（T3）,抽取桡动脉血,观察PaO2/FiO2和PaCO2;记录气腹和Trenderlenburg体位后120 min内的平均气道压;术毕拔管前,肺部超声下观察患者肺不张程度。 结果 术中T-RLRP组的平均气道压高于E-RLRP组（P＜0.05）。T-RLRP组PaO2/FiO2水平T1和T2时点明显低于T0水平（P＜0.05,P＜0.01）,T2时点低于T1时点水平（P＜0.05）。E-RLRP组在T2时PaO2/FiO2水平低于T0（P＜0.05）,T1、T2和T3时点PaO2/FiO2水平均明显高于T-RLRP组（P＜0.01,P＜0.05,P＜0.05）。两组T1和T2时点PaCO2明显高于T0（P＜0.01）,T-RLRP组T1和T2时点PaCO2均高于E-RLRP组（P＜0.05）。术毕肺部超声显示肺不张1级、2级和3级,T-RLRP组比例均明显高于E-RLRP组（P＜0.01）。 结论 相比T-RLRP组,E-RLRP对患者术中和术后氧合影响更小,术后肺不张发生程度更轻。     

Extraperitoneal standard laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE: To describe our preliminary experience with the extraperitoneal approach for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between February and December 2002, we performed 100 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies by an extraperitoneal approach. RESULTS: Of the procedures, 98 were completed as planned, while conversion to a transperitoneal approach was necessary in 2 patients with previous mesh hernia repair. The mean operative time was 163 minutes. The mean operative blood loss was 375 mL. The transfusion rate was 3%. No rectal, bowel, ureteral, or nervous injury was observed. There were no major complications. There were nine minor complications (four anastomotic leakages, one rectus muscle hematoma, four cases of acute urinary retention). The mean hospital stay was 6.1 days. Mean catheterization lasted 6 days. The pathologic stage was T2a, T2b, T2c, T3a, and T3b in 17%, 22%, 39%, 12%, and 10%, respectively. The mean Gleason score was 7. The margins were positive in 15% of the pT2 and in 35% of the pT3 tumors; 48% of the positive margins occurred in the first 25 cases. The median follow-up was 12 months; 93% of the patients had a serum prostate specific antigen concentration <0.2 ng/mL. No patient has presented with clinical port-site metastasis. All the patients were evaluated by questionnaire sent by mail before and after the surgery. With a median follow-up of 12 months, 86% of the patients were continent (no pads), 7% of the patients used 1 precaution pad, and 7% had need for 1 pad routinely. With a median follow-up of 6 months, among the preoperatively potent patients (IIEF5 >20), the postoperative erection and intercourse rate was 64% and 43% in patients with bilateral and unilateral nerve-bundle preservation, respectively. CONCLUSION: The extraperitoneal technique is a reliable approach for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The choice between a transperitoneal or an extraperitoneal approach depends on the surgeon's experience.     

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。     

控尿技术在腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术中的应用

目的　探讨腹腔镜改良前列腺癌根治术 (LRP)治疗早期前列腺癌的疗效。　方法　2000年 10月至 2004年 9月,对 54例TNM分期为T1b~T2 的前列腺癌患者行经腹途径LRP。前期 15例(A组)按Monstouris法完成手术;后期 39例(B组)在熟悉LRP基本技术后进行技术改良:结扎耻骨后血管复合体,沿前列腺包膜锐性分离前列腺尖部,保留尿道括约肌和尿道直肠肌; 正确判断前列腺与膀胱颈交界部,保护膀胱颈环状肌环;横行离断膀胱颈后唇,在狄氏筋膜和膀胱肌外层之间向膀胱颈近端方向适当游离膀胱颈后唇;精细吻合后尿道与膀胱颈,将吻合口的前壁与耻骨后血管复合体固定。比较两组手术时间、出血量、围手术期并发症、术后控尿恢复时间和血清前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)值。　结果　54例手术均获成功。A、B两组平均手术时间分别为 390(270 ~660)min和 240(180~360)min; 平均出血量 430 ( 200 ~1100 )ml和 160 ( 100 ~400 )ml;手术并发症分别为 6例和5例;恢复控尿时间分别为 6个月和 3个月。以上指标两组比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0. 05)。血清前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)值A组 2例升高,B组随访 33例 1例升高 ( 6例近期完成手术者未复查),其余患者PSA均<0. 1ng/ml。　结论　随着手术技术的熟练和控尿技术的应用,LRP手术时间可缩短至 3h,恢复控     

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.     

Is laparoscopic radical prostatectomy better than traditional retropubic radical prostatectomy? An analysis of peri-operative morbidity in two contemporary series in Italy

OBJECTIVE: To compare morbidity in two groups of patients who underwent retropubic or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in the same period.PATIENTS AND METHODS: The clinical and pathological data obtained in 50 consecutive patients who underwent retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) from January 2001 to December 2001 were compared to those obtained in 71 consecutive patients who were treated in the same year by extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). The two groups were comparable in terms of mean pre-operative PSA and biopsy Gleason score. The peri-operative data included operative time, intra-operative and post-operative transfusion rates, complication rates, hospitalization length, and duration of catheterization. The following pathological parameters were considered: Gleason score, pathological stage, and positive surgical margin rate. A comparative evaluation of continence recovery (no pads and any leakage) was made only in patients with follow-up longer than 12 months.RESULTS: The two groups were comparable in terms of pathological stage and definitive Gleason score. Operating times were significantly shorter in RRP (p<0.0001). LRP patients showed higher autologous (p<0.001) and eterologous transfusion (p=0.03). No significant difference was observed in terms of complication rates (p=0.07). The rectal injury rate was 2.8% in the laparoscopic group. The mean post-operative hospital stay was 10.2+/-2 days in the surgery group and 7.2+/-3.4 days in the laparoscopy group (p<0.001). Catheterization time was 8.4+/-0.9 days in the surgery group and 8+/-2.8 days in the laparoscopy group (p=0.27). After 12 months, complete continence was achieved in 64% of RRP and 40% of LRP patients, respectively (p=0.29).CONCLUSION: The results of our non-randomized study show that up to now laparoscopic radical prostatectomy does not provide significant advantages in terms of peri-operative morbidity compared with the traditional retropubic approach.     

Oncologic outcome and continence recovery after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: 3 years' follow-up in a "second generation center"

OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in major centers guarantees oncologic and functional results equal to open procedures. In our institution this operation was introduced in 2001 after an adequate training in laparoscopic surgery. We report the oncologic and functional results after 3 years of experience. METHODS: We considered our first 150 patients that had undergone transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The following parameters were prospectively collected and analyzed: pathological findings, surgical margins, surgical time, blood loss, hospital stay, catheterization, complications, oncologic follow-up and continence. RESULTS: Single positive surgical margins were observed in 26 patients (17.3%) and multiple positive margins in 15 patients (10%). The rates of positive margins in organ confined tumors (pT2a/b) were 11.3%. Preoperative PSA>10 ng/ml (Chi-square p<0.01), pathological stage>pT2 (Chi-square p<0.001) and Gleason score>6 (Chi-square p<0.01) were significantly correlated with positive margins. Major complications occurred in 16 patients (10.7%). The total recurrence rate is 11.7%. The continence rate at 12 months is 91.7%.with 44.3% of patients completely continent at the moment of catheter removal. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in now a well codified operation that, after an adequate training, could be learned and reproduced safely. Actually this is our first choice surgical approach in patients with localized prostate cancer.     

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review of comparative studies

PURPOSE: We compared the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy through a systematic assessment of the literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature databases were searched from 1996 to December 2004 inclusive. Studies comparing transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, extraperitoneal endoscopic radical prostatectomy or robot assisted radical prostatectomy with open radical retropubic prostatectomy or radical perineal prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer were included. Comparisons between different laparoscopic approaches were also included. RESULTS: We identified 30 comparative studies, of which none were randomized controlled trials. There were 21 studies comparing laparoscopic with open prostatectomy with a total of 2,301 and 1,757 patients, respectively, and 9 comparing different laparoscopic approaches with a total of 1,148 patients. In terms of safety there did not appear to be any important differences in the complication rate between laparoscopic and open approaches. However, blood loss and transfusions were lower for laparoscopic approaches. In terms of efficacy operative time was longer for laparoscopic than for open prostatectomy but length of stay and duration of catheterization were shorter. Positive margin rates and recurrence-free survival were similar. Continence and potency were not well reported but they appeared similar for the 2 approaches. There were no important differences between laparoscopic approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is emerging as an alternative to open radical prostatectomy but randomized, controlled trials considering patient relevant outcomes, such as survival, continence and potency, with sufficient followup are required to determine relative safety and efficacy.