Technique for laparoscopic running urethrovesical anastomosis:the single knot method

Velthoven, Roland F. van; Ahlering, Thomas E.; Peltier, Alexandre; Skarecky, Douglas; Clayman, Ralph V.

doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(02)02543-8

Cited by 496 publications

(172 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

167

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Urethrovesical anastomosis was performed using a running suture with a double-armed 3-0 monocryl with RB-1 needle. 13 The urethral catheter was removed 6-7 days postoperatively by cystography. CM, UPP, and ALPP were performed 1-2 days preoperatively, and 3-4 days after catheter removal.…”

Section: Patient Selection Operative Technique and Postoperative Evmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urodynamic Evaluation Before and Immediately After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Kadono

Ueno

Yaegashi

et al. 2014

Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Patient Selection Operative Technique and Postoperative Evmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urodynamic Evaluation Before and Immediately After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Kadono

Ueno

Yaegashi

et al. 2014

Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The Van Velthoven anastomosis, consisting of a running suture, was reported for both laparoscopic and robotic prostatectomy in 2003 (Van Velthoven et al, 2003), and is now a standard technique used in RALP. Kaul et al (2005) first reported the preservation of the high lateral prostatic fascia, in addition to the traditional 'neurovascular bundle preservation', which led to improved potency rates, probably because it reduces intra-operative tension on the bundles.…”

Section: Surgical Modificationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prostate cancer remains a significant health problem worldwide and is the second highest cause of cancer-related death in men. While there is uncertainty over which men will benefit from radical treatment, considerable efforts are being made to reduce treatment related side-effects and in optimising outcomes. This article reviews the development and introduction of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP), the results to date, and the possible future directions of RALP. Prostate cancer remains a significant health problem worldwide and is the most common cancer affecting men in the United Kingdom, with over 34 000 cases diagnosed in 2005. It is the second leading cause of cancer-related death among men in the UK and the lifetime risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer is around one in ten. In contrast, in the United States, it is the third commonest cause of cancer-related death among men and the lifetime risk of being diagnosed is one in six, which largely is the consequence of higher rates of PSA testing and screening.Conventional treatment options include radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radical radiotherapy, brachytherapy and active monitoring or surveillance with or without regular biopsy. More recently, focal therapies such as cryoablation and highintensity focused ultrasound have been introduced, but their oncological effectiveness remains uncertain. Radical prostatectomy is an established and accepted treatment for localised and more recently, for locally advanced prostate cancer. Overall 10-year PSA progression rates after RP are around 30%. Recurrence rates are increased in men with a higher pre-operative PSA, Gleason grade, or tumour stage and if there are positive margins in the pathological specimen.Surgery can be performed by traditional open surgery, or laparoscopically -with or without robotic assistance. This article reviews the development and introduction of robotic-assisted laparoscopic RP (RALP), the results to date, and the possible future directions. In order to concentrate on outcomes when the learning curve has been passed, we have for the purposes of this review included studies where 500 or more cases of RALP have been reported plus other selected references. HISTORY OF RADICAL PROSTATECTOMYThe first perineal prostatectomy was performed by Proust in France in 1901, followed by Young in 1905 in the United States of America who performed the surgery on men with prostate cancer. During the early years, there was significant mortality and morbidity, with some surgeons reporting up to 30% mortality rates. Improvements in technique were made, and Millin's retropubic prostatectomy was used for patients with prostate cancer by Memmelaar and others from the late 1940's. It was not until 1983 that the operation was refined by Walsh who also reported the use of a nerve-sparing procedure to improve postprostatectomy potency rates. The first laparoscopic RP was performed in 1991 by Schuessler and, as with open surgery, advances have been made to improve outcomes, inc...

show abstract

“…Mean age was 66 years (55-73), with mean body mass index of 24 (19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35). Twenty-five (89.3%) had ASA surgical risk II and 3 patients were ASA I (10.7%).…”

Section: Between February 2001 and February 2004mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The dissection of the neurovascular bundle is performed in retrograde and antegrade directions, similarly to the technique described in 2004 by Su et al (20). Additionally, the vesicourethral anastomosis is performed with a continuous suture forming 2 hemicircumference as described by Van Velthoven et al, thus reducing the learning curve and providing greater safety as for the anastomosis' final results (21).…”

Section: Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preliminary experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical prostatectomy through duplication of the open technique

Tobias-Machado¹,

Lasmar²,

Medina³

et al. 2005

Int. braz j urol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To describe surgical and functional results with extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with duplication of the open technique, from the experience obtained in the treatment of 28 initial cases.Materials and Methods: In a 36-month period, we prospectively analyzed 28 patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer undergoing extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.Results: Mean surgical time was 280 min, with mean blood loss of 320 mL. As intraoperative complications, there were 2 rectal lesions repaired with laparoscopic suture in 2 planes. There was no conversion to open surgery. Median hospital stay was 3 days, with return to oral diet in the first postoperative day in patients. As post-operative complications, there were 3 cases of extraperitoneal urinary fistula. Two of these cases were resolved by maintaining a Foley catheter for 21 days, and the other one by late endoscopic reintervention for repositioning the catheter. Five out of 18 previously potent patients evolved with erectile dysfunction. The diagnosis of prostate cancer was confirmed in all patients, with focal positive margin occurring in 3 cases. During a mean follow-up of 18 months, 2 patients presented increased PSA, with no clinical evidence of disease.Conclusion: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is a laborious and difficult procedure, with a long learning curve. Extraperitoneal access is feasible, and it is possible to practically duplicate the principles of open surgery. The present technique can possibly offer advantages in terms of decreased blood loss, preservation of erectile function and prevention of positive margins.

show abstract

Technique for laparoscopic running urethrovesical anastomosis:the single knot method

Cited by 496 publications

References 5 publications

Urodynamic Evaluation Before and Immediately After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Urodynamic Evaluation Before and Immediately After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy

Preliminary experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical prostatectomy through duplication of the open technique

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About