Hemorragia de la pared abdominal después de prostatectomía radical asistida por robot: ¿es una complicación de la cirugía robótica?

Retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) has commonly been performed for localized prostate cancer. In the past decade, with the development of laparoscopic and robotic techniques, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) or robotic-assisted LRP has been widely used due to its less invasive nature along with its shorter recovery, reduced blood loss, and improved visualization of the operative region compared to open techniques. Severe hemorrhage following prostatectomy is relatively rare (0.5% to 1.6%), but it is a serious complication. Here, we summarize circumstances in which perioperative severe hemorrhage can develop and interventions needed to achieve hemostasis.

show abstract

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

Tuğcu

Ekşi

Şahin

et al. 2020

BJU International

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

Hemorragia de la pared abdominal después de prostatectomía radical asistida por robot: ¿es una complicación de la cirugía robótica?

Cited by 4 publications

References 19 publications

Tugcu Bakirkoy Technique

Tugcu Bakirkoy Technique

Prophylaxis and management of perioperative hemorrhage in retropubic radical prostatectomy

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About