Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: first experience of 15 cases
Authors:
- 1 January 2017
- journal article
- Published by AVES YAYINCILIK A.Ş. in Urology Research and Practice
- Vol. 43 (4) , 476-483
Abstract
Objective: Minimally invasive techniques are increasingly evolving and preferred to reduce surgical induced morbidity and mortality and minimize the challenges of surgical techniques. Especially radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) includes some challenges like working in a deep and narrow space and challenging ergonomics for the surgeons. Because of these issues open RPP is still performed in experienced centers. In order to reduce these difficulties, robot- assisted radical perineal prostatectomy (r-RPP) is developed. In this study, we report our first clinical results for r-RPP. Material and methods: Between November 2016 and February 2017, 15 patients underwent r-RPP in our center. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was performed for all patients to exclude locally advanced disease. The patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and locally advanced prostate cancer were not chosen for r-RPP method. The patient was positioned in the exaggerated lithotomy with 15 degrees of Trendelenburg position. After incision and dissection of subcutaneous tissue, dissection was advanced to the margin of posterior recto-urethral muscle fibers. Then a GelPOINT® device was placed and robotic system was docked. Results: The mean age of the patients was 60.2±7.8 years. The mean body mass index of the patients was 28.8±1.9 kg/m2. Four patients had previous major abdominal surgeries. Preoperative mean prostate specific antigen value was 7.3±2.4 ng/mL. The mean prostate volume was 40.8±12.4 cc. Mean perineal dissection time was 60±10.1 minutes. Mean console time and total operation time was 95±11.3 and 167±37.4 minutes, respectively. The mean time of postoperative catheterization was 8.3±1.7 days. Early continence rate was 40% after urethral catheter removal and at 3rd month of the surgery mean continence rate was 94% for all patients. Conclusion: We demonstrate that r-RPP is a feasible and efficient method. But still this method needs for further studies in this area. Cite this article as: Tuğcu V, Akça O, Şimşek A, Yiğitbaşı İ, Şahin S, Taşçı Aİ. Robotic assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: first experience of 15 cases. Turk J Urol 2017; 43(4): 476-83Keywords
This publication has 31 references indexed in Scilit:
- Robot‐assisted or pure laparoscopic nerve‐sparing radical prostatectomy: What is the optimal procedure for the surgical margins? A single center experienceInternational Journal of Urology, 2012
- Positive Surgical Margin and Perioperative Complication Rates of Primary Surgical Treatments for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Retropubic, Laparoscopic, and Robotic ProstatectomyEuropean Urology, 2012
- Outcomes for Radical Prostatectomy: Is It the Singer, the Song, or Both?Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2012
- Comparative analysis of radical prostatectomy techniques using perineal or suprapubic approach in the treatment of localized prostate cancerEinstein (São Paulo), 2010
- Transition from pure laparoscopic to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: A single surgeon institutional evolutionUrologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 2010
- Single-Port Laparoscopic Radical ProstatectomyUrology, 2008
- Perioperative Complications of Laparoscopic and Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Radical ProstatectomyJournal of Urology, 2006
- Telerobotic assisted laparoscopicsurgery: Initial laboratory and clinical experienceUrology, 1994
- Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: Anatomical and pathological considerationsThe Prostate, 1983
- Retropubic ProstatectomyJournal of Urology, 1948