Robotic simple prostatectomy: Technical considerations and outcomes

Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
Citações na Scopus
0
Tipo de produção
bookPart
Data de publicação
2012
DOI
Scopus
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
SPRINGER-VERLAG LONDON LTD
Autores
Citação
Colombo, J. R. Jr.; Mitre, A. I.. Robotic simple prostatectomy: Technical considerations and outcomes. In: . ROBOTIC UROLOGIC SURGERY, SECOND EDITION: SPRINGER-VERLAG LONDON LTD, 2012. p.241-245.
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
The open approach has been the gold standard for simple prostatectomy, either through a retropubic enucleation with an anterior transverse prostatic capsulotomy (Millin) or through a suprapubic transvesical access. The simple laparoscopic prostatectomy may be an alternative to open simple prostatectomy with potentially lower morbidity, lower blood loss, faster recovery, shorter hospital stay, and earlier return to normal activities In 2002, Mariano et al.7 first described the technique for laparoscopic simple prostatectomy that was modified by several authors using both transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches. The American Urological Association (AUA) and European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines suggest that open surgery should be the treatment for prostate volume higher than 80 g. Similarly to others procedures, some skilled urologists have replaced the open simple prostatectomy by the laparoscopic counterpart. Robotics brought contributions to laparoscopic simple prostatectomy allowing the enucleation of adenoma without the need for special devices due to the advantages provided by better visualization and robotic-articulated instruments. It also potentially facilitates hemostatic sutures to control the main prostatic vessels, resulting in reduced intraoperative blood loss. The closure of bladder and/or prostatic capsule is easier with robotic assistance. Robotic simple prostatectomy seems to have a shorter learning curve than pure laparoscopic, what would be a real alternative to a larger number of urologists to perform such a procedure with the minimally invasive approach. The drawbacks of robotic simple prostatectomy are the costs and the preferential transperitoneal approach. Although currently literature is scanty on this subject, multicentric studies with larger numbers of subjects are expected to compare the open, laparoscopic, and robotic simple prostatectomy. © Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012.
Palavras-chave
Laparoscopy, Prostate, Prostatectomy, Prostatic hyperplasia, Robotics
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/51032
Referências
  1. AUA guidelines on management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (2003). Chapter 1: Diagnosis and treatment recommendations (2003) J Urol, 170, p. 530
  2. EAU practice guidelines: management of BPH, 2004. Section 4.4.3
  3. Baumert, H., Ballaro, A., Dugardin, F., Kaisary, A.V., Laparoscopic versus open simple prostatectomy: A comparative study (2006) J Urol, 175, p. 1691
  4. McCullough, T.C., Heldwein, F.L., Soon, S.J., Laparoscopic versus open simple prostatectomy: An evaluation of morbidity (2009) J Endourol, 23, p. 129
  5. Oesterling, J.E., Retropubic and suprapubic prostatectomy Campbell’s Urology, 2. , Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED Jr, Wein AJ, eds, 7th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders
  6. 1998:1529-1540: chap 50
  7. Rehman, J., Khan, S.A., Sukkarieh, T., Chughtai, B., Waltzer, W.C., Extraperitoneal laparoscopic prostatectomy (Adenomectomy) for obstructing benign prostatic hyperplasia: Transvesical and transcapsular (Millin) techniques (2005) J Endourol, 19, p. 491
  8. Mariano, M.B., Graziottin, T.M., Tefilli, M.V., Laparoscopic prostatectomy with vascular control for benign prostatic hyperplasia (2002) J Urol, 167, p. 2528
  9. Mariano, M.B., Tefilli, M.V., Graziottin, T.M., Morales, C.M., Goldraich, I.H., Laparoscopic prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia: A six-year experience (2006) Eur Urol, 49, p. 127
  10. Van Velthoven, R., Peltier, A., Laguna, M.P., Piechaud, T., Laparoscopic extraperitoneal adenomectomy (Millin): Pilot study on feasibility (2004) Eur Urol, 45, p. 103
  11. Nadler, R.B., Blunt, L.W., User, H.M., Vallancien, G., Preperitoneal laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (2004) Urology, 63, p. 778
  12. Sotelo, R., Spaliviero, M., Garcia-Segui, A., Laparoscopic retropubic simple prostatectomy (2005) J Urol, 173, p. 757
  13. Sotelo, R.J., Garcia, A.J., Carmona, O., Banda, E., Laparoscopic simple prostatectomy. Experience in 71 cases (2007) J Urol, 177, p. 578
  14. Porpiglia, F., Terrone, C., Renard, J., Transcapsular adenomectomy (Millin): A comparative study, extraperitoneal laparoscopy versus open surgery (2006) Eur Urol, 49, p. 120
  15. Barret, E., Bracq, A., Braud, G., The morbidity of laparoscopic versus open simple prostatectomy (2006) Eur Urol, 5, p. 274
  16. Zhou, L.Y., Xiao, J., Chen, H., Zhu, Y.P., Sun, Y.W., Xuan, O., Extraperitoneal laparoscopic adenomectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia (2009) World J Urol, 27, p. 385
  17. Sotelo, R., Clavijo, R., Carmona, O., Robotic simple prostatectomy (2008) J Urol, 179, p. 513
  18. Yuh, B., Laungani, R., Perimutter, A., Robotassisted Millin’s retropubic prostatectomy: Case series (2008) Can J Urol, 15, p. 4101
  19. John, H., Bucher, C., Engel, N., Fischer, B., Fehr, J.L., Preperitoneal robotic prostate adenomectomy (2009) Urology, 73, p. 811
  20. Serreta, V., Morgia, G., Fondacaro, L., Open prostatectomy for benign prostatic enlargement in southern Europe in the late 1990’s: A contemporary series of 1800 interventions (2002) Urology, 60, p. 623
  21. Gratzke, C., Schlenker, B., Seitz, M., Complications and early postoperative outcome after open prostatectomy in patients with benign prostatic enlargement: Results of a prospective multicenter study (2007) J Urol, 177, p. 1419

Coleções
Livros e Capítulos de Livros - FM/MCG
Livros e Capítulos de Livros - HC/ICESP
Livros e Capítulos de Livros - LIM/55