Results of robotic radical prostatectomy in the hands of surgeons without previous laparoscopic radical prostatectomy experience

10Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Aim: We report our initial experience related with robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) performed by a urologic surgeon without previous laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) experience. Materials and methods: The data of the first 70 patients who underwent RALRP between February 2009 and February 2010 are presented. Results: Mean console time was 214 ± 55.5 min with pelvic lymph node dissection (LND) in 14 patients. Mean intraoperative blood loss was 215 ± 227.3 cc. Fourteen patients had positive surgical margins: pT3 (n = 12) and pT2 (n = 2). Lodge drains and urethral catheters were removed at a mean of 2.9 ± 2.7 and 11.6 ± 5.9 days, respectively. Fortythree of 58 patients (82.9%) had urinary control at the 3-month follow-up. Regarding the patients with preoperative IIEF scores > 19 (mean: 47.6 ± 17.0, n = 46), mean IIEF score was 45.3 ± 9.9 (n = 11) at the 9-month follow-up. Regarding patients with preoperative IIEF scores of 13-18 (mean: 16.3 ± 1.1, n = 6), mean IIEF score was 17.0 ± 3.5 (n = 3) at the 9-month follow-up. One patient who could not tolerate CO2 insufflation was switched to open surgery due to deep acidosis development. Rectal injury occurred in 1 patient and was repaired robotically without postoperative problems. Conclusion: Previous LRP experience is not essential in order to perform RALRP, which can be learned and performed easily. Additionally, short-term surgical results and pathological outcomes of RALRP are excellent and satisfactory, respectively. © TÜBİTAK.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Canda, A. E., Atmaca, A. F., Akbulut, Z., Asil, E., Kiliç, M., Işgören, A. E., & Balbay, M. D. (2012). Results of robotic radical prostatectomy in the hands of surgeons without previous laparoscopic radical prostatectomy experience. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, 42(SUPPL.1), 1338–1346. https://doi.org/10.3906/sag-1107-66

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free