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.     

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

自1997年Schuesswler等报道腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术(laparoscopic radical prostatectomy,LRP)以来,LRP由于其微创、良好的手术视野以及患者较快的恢复时间,逐渐得到普及.掌握这项技术有较长的学习过程,如何缩短这一学习过程,是泌尿外科医师关注的重点之一,本文回顾性分析2005年4月至2009年10月应用腹腔镜手术治疗的33例前列腺癌根治性切除术患者的资料,报导如下.     

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。     

腹膜外入路腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术41例

目的熟悉腹膜外入路腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术的手术方法,降低前列腺癌根治术的手术并发症的发生率。方法对2005年11月至2012年6月的41例腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析,患者年龄65-78岁,平均72岁,所有患者术前均获确诊,前列腺特异性抗原3.4-45.6ng/ml,〈4.0ng/ml3例,4-20ng/ml30例,〉20ng/ml8例。结果除1例中转开腹手术,其余均由腹腔镜完成,手术时间65-240min,平均125min,术中出血量80-700ml,平均120ml。术后轻度尿失禁6例,通过尿道括约肌锻炼后1-3个月后可满意控尿,术中保留性神经26例,其中19例术后勃起功能恢复,可以完成性交。术后病理均证实为前列腺癌,Gleason评分4-9分,切缘阳性1例,术后加用内分泌治疗。术后随访2个月-6年,生化复发9例,予内分泌治疗后控制满意,1例因其他疾病死亡。结论腹膜外入路腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术是治疗前列腺癌的重要方法,把握好关键步骤,仔细操作,可以达到安全、有效、创伤小的目的。     

经腹腔与经腹膜外途径腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术疗效比较的Meta分析

目的:用Meta分析评价经腹腔入路腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术(TLRP)与经腹膜外入路腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术(ELRP)治疗局限性前列腺癌的疗效和安全性。方法:通过计算机检索Medline、Cochrane临床对照试验中心数据库、中国学术期刊全文数据库、万方数据库和中国生物医学文献数据库,按纳入和排除标准,两位研究员独立进行文献筛查、质量评价和数据提取,交叉核对,并用Stata12.0软件进行Meta分析评价手术时间、术中出血量、术后尿管留置天数、肠功能恢复时间、术后住院天数等相关指标。结果:共纳入9篇文献,共942例患者,其中行TLRP患者492例,行ELRP患者450例。Meta分析结果显示:TLRP与ELRP两者在手术时间[SMD=0.60,95%CI(-0.06,1.26)]、术中出血量[SMD=0.01,95%CI(-0.35,0.36)]、术后留置尿管时间[SMD=0.10,95%CI(-0.21,0.40)]、术后住院天数[SMD=0.45,95%CI(-0.01,0.91)]方面无统计学差异,在肠功能恢复时间[SMD=1.18,95%CI(0.26,2.10)]有显著性差异。结论:TLRP和ELRP在治疗局限性前列腺癌在手术时间、术中出血量、留置尿管时间、术后住院天数方面无统计学差异,在肠功能恢复时间上,ELRP比TLRP更具有优势。     

腹腔镜下经腹膜外径路行前列腺癌根治术(附7例报告)

目的:探讨腹腔镜下经腹膜外径路行前列腺癌根治术的手术方法和临床效果。方法:7例前列腺癌患者,腹腔镜下经腹膜外径路分离前列腺,切开膀胱颈部,分离前列腺尖部、游离精囊后顺行前列腺切除术,膀胱颈成形后与尿道吻合。结果:平均手术时间为6.7h,术中平均出血量为1385ml。术后24～48h恢复肠道功能,2～3周后拔除尿管,2例出现轻度尿失禁,无术后出血、直肠损伤、尿路狭窄等其他并发症发生。结论:腹腔镜下腹膜外途径前列腺癌根治术创伤小、视野清晰、出血少、康复快,是早期前列腺癌根治术的方法之一。     

腹膜外腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术106例报告

目的评估经腹膜外入路的腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术的手术技巧、并发症情况和临床疗效。方法回顾性分析自2010年1月至2013年9月间,在我院行腹膜外腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术治疗的106例患者的临床和病理资料。全组患者术前均无远处转移,术后均在门诊随访,由术者指导盆底肌锻炼,促进控尿功能恢复。结果患者年龄55~77岁,平均65岁。术前PSA3.2~55.8ng/mL。手术时间105~390min,时间长于240min的6例患者均发生在本组最初20例中。3例(2.8%)转开放手术,4例(3.8%)术中在腔镜下留置了输尿管支架管。术后早期并发症包括吻合口漏15例,闭孔神经麻痹1例,淋巴瘘3例,下肢深静脉血栓形成1例,均保守治疗治愈。75例(70.8%)术后3个月内恢复控尿功能,余者在3个月至1年时恢复控尿功能。结论腹膜外腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术的手术操作较复杂,但经过20例以上的操作,就可以掌握其关键技术,可获得和开放手术相似的肿瘤学控制率和术后控尿功能。     

经腹膜外途径腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术29例报告

目的:探讨经腹膜外途径腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术(ELRP)的手术方法和临床效果。方法:对2011年6月~2014年2月行ELRP术29例患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析:患者年龄60~77岁,平均68岁。所有患者均于术前行前列腺穿刺活组织检查或前列腺电切术后经病理检查证实为前列腺癌,术前总PSA平均18.9μg/L,其中4.0μg/L者2例,4~20μg/L者16例,20μg/L者11例。均行ELRP。结果:手术时间60~330min,平均125min;术中出血量80~1 200ml,平均150ml;术中输血2例。1例因阴茎背静脉复合体出血中转开放手术。术中直肠损伤1例。术后病理检查均证实为前列腺癌,Gleason评分6~9分,切缘阳性3例。术后留置导尿管时间12~26d,平均15d。拔除尿管后出现轻度尿失禁8例,术后1~3个月均可满意控尿。术后3个月检查血清PSA为0~0.18μg/L,未发现肿瘤局部生化复发和远处转移。结论:ELRP创伤小,并发症少,患者恢复快,是治疗局限性前列腺癌安全有效的手术方法。     

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。     

Categorisation of complications of endoscopic extraperitoneal and laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomy

The aim of the present review is to focus on the various attempts of categorisation of complications after endoscopic extraperitoneal and laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomy. Several classifications of complications and adverse events have been proposed in the literature but none is widely accepted or applied so far. We thus present a review of the existing literature and the complications of our series of 900 patients treated with endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE). We applied the recently revised Clavien classification system to grade EERPE complications.     

Simultaneous extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and intraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair with mesh.

OBJECTIVE: This report depicts the feasibility of the concomitant repair of a large direct inguinal hernia with mesh by using the intraperitoneal onlay approach after extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. METHODS: A 66-year-old man with localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate was referred for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The patient also had a 4-cm right, direct inguinal hernia, found on physical examination. To minimize the risk of infection of the mesh, an extraperitoneal laparoscopic prostatectomy was performed in the standard fashion after which transperitoneal access was obtained for the hernia repair. The hernia repair was completed by reduction of the hernia sac, followed by prosthetic mesh onlay. In this fashion, the peritoneum separated the prostatectomy space from the mesh. A single preoperative and postoperative dose of cefazolin was administered. RESULTS: The procedure was completed with no difficulty. Total operative time was 4.5 hours with an estimated blood loss of 450 mL. The final pathology revealed pT2cN0M0 prostate cancer with negative margins. No infectious or bowel complications occurred. At 10-month follow-up, no evidence existed of recurrence of prostate cancer or the hernia. CONCLUSION: Concomitant intraperitoneal laparoscopic mesh hernia repair and extraperitoneal laparoscopic prostatectomy are feasible. This can decrease the risk of potential infectious complications by separating the mesh from the space of Retzius where the prostatectomy is performed and the lower urinary tract is opened.     

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。     

Patients with prior TURP undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy have higher positive surgical margin rates

With the incidence of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP) increasing, questions regarding the significance of margin status have arisen. Patients with a history of a prior transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) may have a higher incidence of positive margins because of the prior surgery. We examined our IRB-approved database to determine whether patients who had undergone a prior TURP had higher rates of positive margins than patients who had no history of TURP. Between July 2003 and March 2007, six urologic surgeons in our medical group (City of Hope medical group) performed RALP on 2,041 patients. Consent to enter the database was obtained from 1,768 patients. Of these, 51 had undergone prior TURP. Patients with a history of TURP before undergoing RALP had positive margin rates of 35.3% (18 of 51) compared with 17.6% (18 of 102) of patients without a history of TURP (P = 0.015). The location of the positive margins was statistically more prevalent at the bladder neck in TURP patients (13.7 vs. 2.0%) than in non-TURP patients (Fisher’s exact P value = 0.004). These two groups were statistically similar with regard to other variables examined including race, BMI, preoperative PSA, Gleason score, and pathologic stage. Patients who underwent RALP following TURP were found to have a higher positive margin rate. The positive margins were more likely to be located at the bladder neck in TURP versus non-TURP patients.     

Intrafascial nerve-sparing endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVES: Based on our recently published anatomic studies, we present the most recent refinement of the endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE), the intrafascial nerve-sparing EERPE (nsEERPE). METHODS: As part of the intrafascial technique, the dissection plane is directly on the prostatic capsule, freeing the prostate laterally from its thin surrounding fascia that contains small vessels and nerves. The technique enables puboprostatic ligament preservation, leaving intact endopelvic fascia, periprostatic fascia, and neurovascular bundles. The operation was performed in 150 patients with indications for nerve-sparing procedure. RESULTS: The mean operative time was 131 min (range: 50-210 min) and the mean catheterization time was 5.9 d (range: 4-20 d). Twelve months postoperatively, 94.3% of the patients were continent (no need for pads), 4.6% had minimal stress incontinence, and one patient required >2 pads/d. At the 12-mo follow-up, the potency rates (erections sufficient for intercourse with or without the use of phosphodiesterase 5 [PDE5] inhibitors) of the patients who underwent bilateral intrafascial nsEERPE were 89.7% (age: 44-55 yr), 81.1% (age: 56-65 yr), and 61.9% (age: >65 yr). Positive surgical margins in pT2 and pT3 tumors were 4.5% and 29.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The intrafascial nsEERPE enables the dissection of the prostate with limited trauma to the surrounding fascias and the enclosed neurovascular bundles. We propose that the preserved neurovascular bundles with intrafascial nsEERPE are more viable. The results advocate this proposition.     

筋膜内切除法在腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术中的应用

目的 探讨筋膜内切除法在腹腔镜下根治性前列腺切除术中的应用.方法 前列腺癌患者23例,平均年龄65岁.术前PSA 4.5～8.6(6.25 ±2.1)ng/ml;临床分期T1 16例、T2 7例;活检组织Gleason评分:5分3例、6分11例、7分9例.有性生活者18例.行腹腔镜下根治性前列腺切除术.不打开盆内筋膜,自前列腺基底部沿前部正中线纵形切开前列腺筋膜,贴前列腺包囊分离前列腺前面、两侧、尖部.保留神经血管束.保护前列腺尖尿道相连处括约肌.结果 23例手术顺利.平均手术时间125(110～170)min.出血量320～1500(550±210)ml,输血3例.平均留置尿管12(9～15)d.术后随访12个月,完全尿控20例(87%).有轻微压力性尿失禁3例(13%).18例术前有性生活的患者能充分勃起完成性交13例(72%).随访期间出现生化复发2例(9%).结论 腹腔镜下筋膜内切除法剥离前列腺对前列腺周围筋膜、附着于筋膜的神经血管束以及尿道外括约肌损伤小.手术方法可行.     

Anaesthetic considerations for endoscopic extraperitoneal and laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomy

We focus on the anaesthesiology and requirements for minimally invasive procedures for treating localized prostate cancer. The management of anaesthesia for laparoscopic and endoscopic radical prostatectomy (RP) can be more complex than expected. Numerous groups, especially early in their experience, have had problems (e.g. hypercarbia) with the anaesthesiology of the procedure. Co-operation between the surgeon and the anaesthesiologist is of paramount importance for a safe and effective laparoscopic or endoscopic RP. Nevertheless, the relative anaesthetic equipment and trained personnel should be available before embarking on such technically proficient procedures.     

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy following laparoscopic bilateral mesh hernia repair.

Laparoscopic mesh hernia repair is an effective form of management of inguinal hernias. Polypropylene mesh is generally placed at the internal rings extending across the midline resulting in an intense fibrotic reaction that can make subsequent radical retropubic prostatectomy and lymphadenectomy difficult. We report the first case of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy following laparoscopic bilateral mesh hernia repair.     

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.     

Surgical margins in radical prostatectomy: a comparison between retropubic and laparoscopic surgery

Objectives To compare positive surgical margins in both radical retropubic prostatectomies and laparoscopic surgery in two reference centres in Brazil. Materials and methods One hundred and seventy nine pathological studies from patients, who underwent radical prostatectomy due to prostate adenocarcinoma, 89 submitted to retropubic surgery and 90 to laparoscopic surgery, were analyzed. Inclusion criteria Patients with PSA ≤15 ng/ml, and a Gleason score ≤7 at the prostate biopsy, maximum T2 clinical staging. Results There has been surgical margin compromising in 41.57% of the patients submitted to retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), 34.21% of which were at pT2 stage and 84.61% were at pT3 stage. In patients submitted to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) positive surgical margin was found at 24.44% of the cases: 20.98% of which were at pT2 stage and 55.55% at pT3 stage. Conclusions In the analyzed samples, proportion of positive surgical margin was higher in RRP than in LRP (P = 0.023). A higher number of patients on a randomized prospective study would be necessary for a better comparison between the groups.