4.4 Article

Laparoendoscopic Single-site Surgery Simple Prostatectomy: Initial Report

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 74, 期 3, 页码 626-630

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.03.039

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES To report the first case and detailed technique of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery simple prostatectomy for benign hypertrophy. METHODS A 67-year-old man presented with acute urinary retention requiring catheterization. Serum prostate-specific antigen level was 5 ng/mL, and a biopsy revealed benign hypertrophy with a transrectal ultrasound volume estimation of 110 mL. LESS simple prostatectomy was performed using a single multilumen port inserted through a solitary 2.5-cm intraumbilical incision. Standard laparoscopic ultrasonic shears and needle drivers, articulating scissors, and specifically designed bent grasping instruments facilitated dissection and suturing. RESULTS An R-port was placed intraperitoneally through a 2.5-cm intraumbilical incision. No extraumbilical skin incisions were made. Total operative time was 120 minutes and estimated blood loss was 200 mL. A closed suction drain was externalized through the umbilical incision. No intraoperative or postoperative complications occurred. Hospital stay was 2 days, the retropubic drain was removed at 3 days, and the catheter removed at I week. Specimen weight was 95 g and final pathology revealed benign prostatic hyperplasia. At 3 months follow-up, the patient was completely continent and voiding spontaneously with a Q(max). of 85 mL/s. CONCLUSIONS We demonstrate technical feasibility and describe the detailed surgical technique of LESS simple prostatectomy. Our initial experience suggests that this technique may be an alternative for large-volume benign prostatic hyperplasia in lieu of open surgery. Comparative studies with other surgical techniques will determine its place in the surgical armamentarium of benign prostatic hyperplasia. UROLOGY 74: 626-630, 2009. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据