Surgical technique for preventing lymphatic complications during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
-
Published:2024-07-08
Issue:3
Volume:12
Page:88-96
-
ISSN:2308-6424
-
Container-title:Urology Herald
-
language:
-
Short-container-title:Vestn. Urol.
Author:
Skrupskiy K. S.1ORCID, Kolontarev K. B.2ORCID, Govorov A. V.2ORCID, Dyakov V. V.2ORCID, Sarukhanian A. L.3ORCID, Gritskov I. O.3ORCID, Pushkar D. Yu.2ORCID
Affiliation:
1. Botkin City Clinical Hospital 2. Botkin City Clinical Hospital;
Russian University of Medicine (RosUniMed) 3. Russian University of Medicine (RosUniMed)
Abstract
Introduction. Radical prostatectomy (RP) stands the gold standard method of treatment for localised prostate cancer. Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is a common surgical procedure that can be used for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Lymphocele is the most common complication after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and PLND.Objective. To develop a surgical technique aimed at reducing the incidence of lymphocele in patients who underwent RARP with TL and to evaluate its efficacy and safety.Materials & methods. The study included 49 patients who underwent RARP and PLND. The patients were divided into 2 groups: group 1 — patients with free peritoneal flap fixed to the pubic bone after RARP and PLND (n = 25) and group 2 — control group «without peritoneal flap fixation» (n = 24). The average follow-up period was 3 months.Results. No significant differences in clinical parameters were observed between the groups in perioperative period. In postoperative period lymphocele was diagnosed in 5 (10.2%) patients: group 1 — 1 (4%) patients, group 2 — 4 (16.7%). There were no significant differences in lymphocele volume between the groups. In group 1 lymphocele had no clinical manifestation. Symptomatic lymphocele was diagnosed in 1 patient (4.2%) from the control group.Conclusion. The surgical technique of a free peritoneal flap fixation to the pubic bone combined with PLND after RARP may reduce the incidence of lymphocele if compared to the standard technique.
Publisher
Rostov State Medical University
Reference26 articles.
1. Ramazanov K.K., Kolontarev K.B., Ter-Ovanesov M.D., Govorov A.V., Vasilyev A.O., Kazakov A.S., Pushkar D.Yu. Comparative analysis of 10-year functional outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and radical retropubic prostatectomy. Experience of the Urology Clinic of the A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry. Cancer Urology. 2023;19(2):56-65. (In Russian). DOI: 10.17650/1726-9776-2023-19-2-56-65 2. Ramazanov K.K., Kolontarev K.B., Gens G.P., Govorov A.V., Vasilyev A.O., Sadcheko А.V., Alaverdyan A.I., Stroganov R.V., Skrupskiy K.S., Kim Yu.A., Shiryaev A.А., Pushkar D.Yu. Long-term oncological and functional results of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Cancer Urology. 2021;17(3):121-128. (In Russian). DOI: 10.17650/1726-9776-2021-17-3-121-128 3. Ryabov M.A., Kotov S.V. Comparative assessment of the learning curve of retropubic, laparoscopic, perineal, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urology Herald. 2022;10(2):63-71. (In Russian). DOI: 10.21886/2308-6424-2022-10-2-63-71 4. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, Fanti S, Fossati N, Gandaglia G, Gillessen S, Grivas N, Grummet J, Henry AM, van der Kwast TH, Lam TB, Lardas M, Liew M, Mason MD, Moris L, Oprea-Lager DE, van der Poel HG, Rouvière O, Schoots IG, Tilki D, Wiegel T, Willemse PM, Cornford P. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2021;79(2):243-262. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042 5. Cacciamani GE, Maas M, Nassiri N, Ortega D, Gill K, Dell'Oglio P, Thalmann GN, Heidenreich A, Eastham JA, Evans CP, Karnes RJ, De Castro Abreu AL, Briganti A, Artibani W, Gill I, Montorsi F. Impact of Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection and Its Extent on Perioperative Morbidity in Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4(2):134-149. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.02.001
|
|