Re: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: omitting a pelvic drain

Patel, Vipul

doi:10.1590/s1677-55382008000300015

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, placement of drainage tubes is a generally accepted concept in China. Additionally, Patel et al (32) believes that the contents of the drainage tube can provide additional information after surgery, potential bleeding and leakage of urine or serious complications can be detected earlier through the observation of the color and volume of the drainage or the inspection of the drainage if necessary. Moreover, the drainage tube can reduce the formation of postoperative hematoma, and patients with hematoma have long been confirmed to have a large proportion of bladder neck contracture and permanent urinary incontinence (33).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of perioperative outcome between robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience of a single institution

Wang

et al. 2019

Int. braz j urol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare perioperative and pathological results in different approaches of robotic or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.Materials and Methods We retrospectively reviewed 206 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (PC) from June 2016 to October 2017 in the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University. A total of 132 cases underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RLRP) including 54 patients on transperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (Tp-RLRP) and 78 on extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (Ep-RLRP). Meanwhile, 74 patients performed with extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (Ep-LPR) were also included. Perioperative and pathological data were compared among these groups.Results All operations were completed without conversion. There was no significant difference in basic and pathological characteristics of patients between each two groups. In Tp-RLRP vs. Ep-RLRP: Significant differences were found in the comparison in total operation time [235.98 ± 59.16 vs. 180.45 ± 50.27 min, P = 0.00], estimated blood loss (EBL) [399.07 ± 519.57 vs. 254.49 ± 308.05 mL, P = 0.0473], postoperative pelvic drainage time [5.37 ± 2.33 vs. 4.24 ± 3.08 d, P = 0.0237] and postoperative length of stay [8.15 ± 3.30 vs. 6.49 ± 3.49 d, P = 0.0068] while no significant differences were detected in other variables. In Ep-RLRP vs. Ep-LPR: Longer total operation time was observed in Ep-RLRP when compared to Ep-LPR [180.45 ± 50.27 vs. 143.80 ± 33.13 min, P = 0.000]. No significant differences were observed in other variables.Conclusion In RLRP, Ep-RLRP was proved a safe and effective approach based on the perioperative results compared to Tp-RLRP. Ep-RLRP and Ep-LPR provides equivalent perioperative and pathological outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%