Abdominal wall haemorrhage after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: Is it a complication of robotic surgery?

Taşçı, Ali İhsan; Şimşek, Abdülmuttalip; Tuğcu, Volkan; Bitkin, Alper; Sönmezay, Erkan; Törer, Buğra Doğukan

doi:10.1016/j.acuroe.2013.01.011

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is frequently performed transperitoneally because of advantages that include a large working space and familiar anatomy [19]; however, complications associated with patient position, intraperitoneal organs and abdominal wall may occur with this approach [20,21]. Moreover, dissection of noticeable adhesions is required in patients with a history of abdominal surgery [22].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robot‐assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: a review of 95 cases

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To assess the early functional and oncological outcomes of a large series of patients who underwent robot‐assisted radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP). Materials and Methods We retrospectively analysed the patients who underwent robot‐assisted RPP for localized prostate cancer between November 2016 and September 2018. Patients who had locally advanced disease proven on biopsy or were suspected to have locally advanced disease on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and patients who had a contraindication for the exaggerated lithotomy position were not included in this study. Patient demographics, preoperative and postoperative variables, complications and follow‐up times were recorded. Results A total of 95 patients were included. Their mean ± sd age was 61.5 ± 6.5 years. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) preoperative prostate‐specific antigen level was 6.1 (3.7) ng/mL, the median (IQR) operating time was 140 (25) min, and the mean ± sd blood loss was 67.4 ± 17 mL. Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) was performed for 12 patients (12.6%). The median (IQR) hospital stay was 1 (1) days. Positive surgical margins were present in eight patients (8.4%). After catheter removal, the immediate continence rate was 41%. Continence rates were 78%, 87% and 91%, respectively, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. Potency rates were 49%, 69% and 77%, respectively, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery for patients who had adequate potency preoperatively. The median (IQR) follow‐up time was 13 (3.1) months. Conclusion We conclude that robot‐assisted RPP is a reliable and effective surgical technique that can be employed in the treatment of localized prostate cancer regardless of prostate volume, especially in patients with a history of abdominal surgery. As an additional advantage, PLND can be performed through the same incision.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robot‐assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: a review of 95 cases

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The abdominal wall hemorrhage during RARP is another postoperative complication, related to robotic arms, which may damage the inferior epigastric veins, which is again avoided in the r-PRP technique. [4] Postoperative ileus is caused by many factors, the most important of which is the preferred surgical technique. Christensen et al [17] divided their patients into two groups and performed robotic radical prostatectomy by applying the 12 mmHg pressure in one group and 15 mmHg in the other.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[3] Conventional robotic procedure is comfortable for the surgeon, but the number of ports used in the surgery leads to port scars and complications, such as hernia or hemorrhage. [4] The laparo-endoscopic single site surgery radical prostatectomy method has been described to avoid port site complications which are postoperative pain, hemorrhage, hernia. This technique provides better cosmesis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robotic-assisted perineal versus transperitoneal radical prostatectomy: A matched-pair analysis

Tuğcu

Akça²,

Şimşek

et al. 2019

Turkish Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: We compared the outcomes of robotic-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy (r-PRP) versus robotic-assisted transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP). Material and methods:Between November 2016 and September 2017 in our center, 40 patients underwent r-PRP, and 40 patients underwent RARP. All patients also underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to exclude the cases with locally advanced disease. Patients with localized prostate cancer (C-T2N0M0) were included in the study. The exclusion criteria were contraindications for undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy; the Gleason score ≥4+3; extracapsular extension proven on biopsy or suspected on mpMRI; clinical stage ≥T2c; required pelvic lymph dissection according to Partin's normogram; previous radiation therapy; hormonal therapy; any previous prostatic, urethral, or bladder neck surgery; and preoperative urinary incontinence or erectile dysfunction. Patients were placed in the exaggerated lithotomy position with 15° Trendelenburg for r-PRP and 40° Trendelenburg for RARP. Results:The mean age for the r-PRP and RARP groups were 61.2 (46-73) and 62.2 (50-75) years, respectively. The mean body mass index was significantly higher in the r-PRP group (p= 0.02). The mean procedure duration time was 169.4 (100-255) minutes for the r-PRP group and 173.1 (130-210) minutes for the RARP group. The mean console time and anastomosis time were significantly lower for the r-PRP group. The mean estimated blood loss was significantly lower for the r-PRP group (p= 0.002). Immediate continence rates in the r-PRP and RARP groups following the urethral catheter removal were 42% and 35% (p= 0.30), respectively. Continence rates increased to 94.2% in the r-PRP and 72% in RARP (p= 0.001) group at the 6 th month, and to 95% in the r-PRP and 85.2% in RARP (p= 0.02) group at the 9th month follow-up period. According to the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5), the erectile function rates at the 3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-up in the r-PRP group were 44%, 66%, and 75%, respectively. The rates in the RARP group at the 3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-up were 25%, 42%, and 66% (p= 0.001), respectively. Conclusion:In our experience, r-PRP has acceptable morbidity, excellent surgical and pathological outcomes, and satisfactory oncologic and functional results compared to RARP.

show abstract

“…Tasci et al [32] reported a total of 5 postoperative transfusion-requiring bleedings among their 317 patient series of RARP. In postoperative 5th hour, hemoglobin levels were found as reduced in these 5 cases.…”

Section: Bleedingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there was severe hemorrhage sourcing from abdominal walls. Nevertheless, bleeding stopped on the 3rd or 4th day without surgical exploration, and hemoglobin became stable [32] . RARP has extremely low complication rates in terms of postoperative bleeding.…”

Section: Bleedingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robotic urologic surgery complications

Koç¹,

Canda²

2018

MIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Robot-assisted surgery is a commonly performed procedure in the recent urological approach. The scientific data that reveal the complication rates also tend to increase by the rising popularity of the robot-assisted surgeries in the treatment of urological cancers. Patient characteristics, nature of the cancer and learning curve of the surgeon are the determinant factors of the complication rates. Nevertheless, robot-assisted surgical techniques are safer with acceptable morbidity and mortality rates as compared to open surgical methods. In urology practice, robotic surgery is most commonly performed in the treatment of prostate cancer. Thus, this review subjected to reveal the commonly seen and the serious complications of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, and their prevention and management.

show abstract

Abdominal wall haemorrhage after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: Is it a complication of robotic surgery?

Cited by 4 publications

References 18 publications

Robot‐assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: a review of 95 cases

Robot‐assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: a review of 95 cases

Robotic-assisted perineal versus transperitoneal radical prostatectomy: A matched-pair analysis

Robotic urologic surgery complications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About