Premium
Endoscope‐assisted minilaparotomic radical retropubic prostatectomy
Author(s) -
YAMADA YOSHIAKI,
NAKAMURA KOGENTA,
AOKI SHIGEYUKI,
TAKI TOMOHIRO,
KOKUBO HIROTO,
MATSUBARA HIROYUKI,
TOBIUME MOTOI,
HONDA NOBUAKI
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
international journal of urology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.172
H-Index - 67
eISSN - 1442-2042
pISSN - 0919-8172
DOI - 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2006.01242.x
Subject(s) - medicine , prostatectomy , radical retropubic prostatectomy , urology , surgery , urinary incontinence , prostate cancer , blood loss , urinary continence , cancer
Objective: To assess the clinical efficacy of endoscope‐assisted minilaparotomic radical retropubic prostatectomy (EAM‐RRP) compared with conventional radical retropubic prostatectomy (cRRP). Methods: From September 2001 to December 2003, 30 patients with localized prostate cancer were treated by EAM‐RRP. The surgical manipulation was performed through the wound with thoracoscopic assistance, using standard surgical instruments. In all cases, 800 mL of blood was collected from the patient for autotransfusion. For both EAM‐RRP and cRRP, the internal iliac and obturator lymph nodes were dissected before the prostate removal. Clinical indicators such as operation time, blood loss, and duration of postoperative urine incontinence were analysed in the two groups. Results: The postoperative period before ambulation and the duration of postoperative urine incontinence were significantly shorter after EAM‐RRP than after cRRP, while no significant difference was found in operation time, blood loss, and duration of urethral catheterization. None of the cases required allotransfusion. Conclusion: EAM‐RRP, which had a shorter postoperative period before ambulation and continence, is considered a safe and useful technique for radical prostatectomy.