1. |
|
|
2. |
|
|
3. |
|
|
4. |
|
|
5. |
- Hagman, A., et al.
(författare)
-
Urinary continence recovery and oncological outcomes after surgery for prostate cancer analysed by risk category: results from the LAParoscopic prostatectomy robot and open trial
- 2021
-
Ingår i: World Journal of Urology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0724-4983 .- 1433-8726. ; 39:9, s. 3239-3249
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose To evaluate urinary continence (UC) recovery and oncological outcomes in different risk-groups after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP) and open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP). Patients and methods We analysed 2650 men with prostate cancer from seven open (n = 805) and seven robotic (n = 1845) Swedish centres between 2008 and 2011 in a prospective non-randomised trial, LAPPRO. UC recovery was defined as change of pads less than once in 24 h. Information was collected through validated questionnaires. Rate of positive surgical margins (PSM) and biochemical recurrence (BCR), defined as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) > 0.25 mg/ml, were recorded. We stratified patients into two risk groups (low-intermediate and high risk) based on the D'Amico risk classification system. Result Among men with high-risk prostate cancer, we found significantly higher rates of UC recovery up to 24 months after RRP compared to RALP (66.1% vs 60.5%) RR 0.85 (CI 95% 0.73-0.99) while PSM was more frequent after RRP compared to RALP (46.8% vs 23.5%) RR 1.56 (CI 95% 1.10-2.21). In the same group no significant difference was seen in BCR. Overall, however, BCR was significantly more common after RRP compared to RALP at 24 months (9.8% vs 6.6%) RR 1.43 (Cl 95% 1.08-1.89). The limitations of this study are its non-randomized design and the relatively short time of follow-up. Conclusions Our study indicates that men with high-risk tumour operated with open surgery had better urinary continence recovery but with a higher risk of PSM than after robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery. No significant difference was seen in biochemical recurrence.
|
|
6. |
|
|
7. |
- Nilsson, Hanna, et al.
(författare)
-
Risk of hernia formation after radical prostatectomy : a comparison between open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy within the prospectively controlled LAPPRO trial
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Hernia. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1265-4906 .- 1248-9204. ; 26, s. 157-164
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: In addition to incisional hernia, inguinal hernia is a recognized complication to radical retropubic prostatectomy. To compare the risk of developing inguinal and incisional hernias after open radical prostatectomy compared to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Method: Patients planned for prostatectomy were enrolled in the prospective, controlled LAPPRO trial between September 2008 and November 2011 at 14 hospitals in Sweden. Information regarding patient characteristics, operative techniques and occurrence of postoperative inguinal and incisional hernia were retrieved using six clinical record forms and four validated questionnaires. Results: 3447 patients operated with radical prostatectomy were analyzed. Within 24 months, 262 patients developed an inguinal hernia, 189 (7.3%) after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and 73 (8.4%) after open radical prostatectomy. The relative risk of having an inguinal hernia after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy was 18% lower compared to open radical retropubic prostatectomy, a non-significant difference. Risk factors for developing an inguinal hernia after prostatectomy were increased age, low BMI and previous hernia repair. The incidence of incisional hernia was low regardless of surgical technique. Limitations are the non-randomised setting. Conclusions: We found no difference in incidence of inguinal hernia after open retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The low incidence of incisional hernia after both procedures did not allow for statistical analysis. Risk factors for developing an inguinal hernia after prostatectomy were increased age and BMI.
|
|
8. |
|
|
9. |
|
|
10. |
- Stravodimos, K, et al.
(författare)
-
Correcting and sharing our complications. Misplacement of pigtail catheter, during a Robot Assisted Pyeloplasty. Clinical findings, diagnosis, possible causes and endoscopic treatment
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Archivio italiano di urologia, andrologia : organo ufficiale [di] Societa italiana di ecografia urologica e nefrologica. - : PAGEPress Publications. - 1124-3562. ; 87:2, s. 165-6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: Robotic assisted pyeloplasty (RAP) is rapidly adopted by surgeons around the world. We present a unique complication of the technique, consisting of pigtail misplacement, which was endoscopically resolved. We discuss the clinical findings, differential diagnosis and principles of endoscopic treatment. Materials and Methods: A 41 years old female patients underwent transperitoneal right side RAP with the Hynes-Anderson technique for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Pigtail was placed intraoperatively in an antegrade fashion. Post operative course appeared normal but Kidney-Ureterer-Bladder(KUB) X-ray, revealed a misplaced pigtail. Patient underwent a semirigid ureterorenoscopy demonstrating that the pigtail was exiting the collecting system in the rear line of suturing between continuous sutures. Pigtail was retrieved with a stone retrieval forceps with short upward motions in the renal pelvis under fluoroscopy and then removed from patient, in order to avoid stressing the anastomosis. No leakage was noted in fluoroscopy, a pigtail was correctly placed and patient recovery was uneventful. Results: Retrograde pyelography was the key to accurate diagnosis and endoscopic treatment, because the exact point of exit and anastomosis integrity were established. Retrieval of the pigtail was the most challenging part. Lack of proper visualization and mobilization of the rear part of the anastomosis during surgery, combined with lack of tactile feedback, because of robotic instrumentation, were of critical importance in the manifestation of such a mishap. Endoscopy facilitated case resolve, but proper handling is required to protect the anastomosis. Conclusions: The introduction of novel techniques can carry the burden of novel complications. A surgeon must always keep in mind the complications inherent to the technique and at the same time the limitations of the equipment used, especially the lack of tactile feedback in robotic instrumentation.
|
|