4.4 Article

Single-Port Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy

Journal

UROLOGY
Volume 72, Issue 6, Pages 1190-1193

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2008.06.010

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES To present the initial experience in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy performed exclusively through an umbilical incision using a single three-channel port and specially designed flexible laparoscopic instrumentation. METHODS Since November 26, 2007, we have performed single-port laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in 4 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer. Patients with early-stage prostate cancer (T1c), no previous pelvic surgery, and a body mass index :535 kg/m(2) were selected for single-port laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. A multichannel port was inserted transperitoneally through a 1.8-CM umbilical incision. No additional extraumbilical instruments or ports were inserted. Urethrovesical anastomosis was performed using free-hand interrupted suturing and extracorporeal knot tying. Data were collected prospectively into our institutional review board-approved data registry. RESULTS All cases were completed successfully, without conversion to a standard laparoscopic approach. The total operative time was 285 +/- 30 minutes, with a mean operative time for prostate excision and urethrovesical anastomosis of 3.25 hours and 1.1 hours, respectively. The mean blood loss was 288 +/- 131 mL, and no patient required a blood transfusion. The hospital stay was 2.5 +/- 0.6 days. The Foley catheter was removed 2 weeks (range 1-3) after surgery. No intraoperative complications Occurred; however, 1 patient developed a rectourethral fistula that was noted 2 months after surgery. At 18 weeks of follow-up, 3 patients used 1 or 0 pads for continence daily, 2 patients had positive margins noted at the site of extracapsular extension, and all patients had an undetectable prostate-specific antigen level. CONCLUSIONS Single-port laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is feasible. Additional investigation is needed to evaluate the safety and oncologic adequacy of this new approach. UROLOGY 72: 1190-1193, 2008. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available