Comparative analysis of radical prostatectomy techniques using perineal or suprapubic approach in the treatment of localized prostate cancer

Amorim, Gelbert Luiz Chamon do Carmo; Cruz, Geraldo Magela Gomes da; Veloso, Denny Fabrício Magalhães; Kartabil, José David; Vieira, José Carlos M.; Alves, Paulo Roberto

doi:10.1590/s1679-45082010ao1592

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They reported no difference in rectal injury between RRP and open RPP techniques. Amorim et al [24] reported that rectal injury in 2.2-2.8% of laparoscopic extraperitoneal RP operations. Tewari et al [25] reported the risk of rectal injury as 0.5-1.5% in robot-assisted laparoscopic RP operations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: first experience of 15 cases

Tuğcu

Akça

Şimşek

et al. 2017

Turkish Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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/m 2 . 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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: first experience of 15 cases

Tuğcu

Akça

Şimşek

et al. 2017

Turkish Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unlike other methods, this technique is performed with an instrument manoeuvre capability of 540 degrees under the high-resolution image of robotic system at a different compartment in a narrow area. However, there may be some factors that can be considered as limitations of this technique such as different pelvimetric measurements (7)(8)(9). No rectal injury was observed in our series of R-PRP.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

Effect of pelvimetric diameters on success of surgery in patients submitted to robot-assisted perineal radical prostatectomy

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Minimally invasive techniques are used increasingly by virtue of advancements in technology. Surgery for prostate cancer, which has high morbidity, is performed with an increasing momentum based on the successful oncological and functional outcomes as well as cosmetic aspects. Materials and methods: Sixty two patients underwent robot-assisted perineal radical prostatectomy (R-PRP) surgery at our clinic between November 2016 and August 2017. Six pelvimetric dimensions were defi ned and measured by performing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) prior to operation in all patients. In light of these data, we aimed to investigate the effect of pelvimetric measurements on surgery duration and surgical margin positivity. Results: By using this technique in pelvic area, we observed that measurements only representing surgical site and excluding other pelvic organs had a signifi cant effect on surgery duration, and pelvic dimensions had no signifi cant effect on surgical margin positivity. Conclusion: In R-PRP technique, peroperative fi ndings and oncological outcomes can vary depending on several variable factors, but although usually not taken into account, pelvimetric measurements can also affect these outcomes. However, there is a need for randomised controlled trials to be conducted with more patients.

show abstract

“…Radical prostatectomy (RP) is not free of complications, since intraoperative blood loss, lymphocele, infection, postoperative urinary incontinence, reoperation and erectile dysfunction may occur 3 - 4 . The suprapubic prostatectomy has an average duration of 02:47 hours 5 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictors of well-being and quality of life in men who underwent radical prostatectomy: longitudinal study

Romanzini¹,

Pereira

Guilherme

et al. 2018

Rev. Latino-Am. Enfermagem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:to identify socio-demographic, clinical and psychological predictors of well-being and quality of life in men who underwent radical prostatectomy, in a 360-day follow-up. Method:longitudinal study with 120 men who underwent radical prostatectomy. Questionnaires were used for characterization and clinical evaluation of the participant, as well as the instruments Visual Analog Scale for Pain, The Ways of Coping Questionnaire, Hospital Depression and Anxiety Scale, Satisfaction with Social Support Scale, Marital Satisfaction Scale, Subjective Well-Being Scale and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index. For data analysis, the linear mixed-effects model was used. Results:the socio-demographic factors age and race were not predictors of the dependent variables; time of surgery, problem-focused coping, and anxiety were predictors of subjective well-being; pain, anxiety and depression were negative predictors of quality of life; emotion-focused coping was a positive predictor. Marital dissatisfaction was a predictor of both variables. Conclusion:predictor variables found were different from the literature: desire for changes in marital relationship presented a positive association with quality of life and well-being; emotion-focused coping was a predictor of quality of life; and anxiety was a predictor of subjective well-being.

show abstract

Comparative analysis of radical prostatectomy techniques using perineal or suprapubic approach in the treatment of localized prostate cancer

Cited by 7 publications

References 19 publications

Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: first experience of 15 cases

Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: first experience of 15 cases

Effect of pelvimetric diameters on success of surgery in patients submitted to robot-assisted perineal radical prostatectomy

Predictors of well-being and quality of life in men who underwent radical prostatectomy: longitudinal study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About