Comparison of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
- VernacularTitle:经腹与经腹膜外腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术的效果比较
- Author:
Shuo WANG
;
Hang HUANG
;
Dan XIA
;
Geming CHEN
;
Danbo FANG
;
Baihua SHEN
;
Baiye JIN
;
Songliang CAI
;
Liping XIE
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Laparoscopy;
Prostate cancer;
Prostatectomy
- From:
Chinese Journal of Urology
2008;29(5):329-331
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the clinical features and results between transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.Methods Thirty-three prostate cancer patients treated with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Among them,21 cases had been done transperitoneally and 12 cases had been done extroperitoneally. The two different approaches were evaluated and compared in respects of operating time, estimated blood loss, complications during surgery, postoperative complications, intestinal function recovery time, catheterization time and length of hospital stay.Results All the surgeries had completed successfully without conversion to open surgery. For transperitoneal approach and extraperitoneal approach, the operating time was (299±46)min and (309±64)min, blood loss was (618±448)ml and (677±469)ml. There were 3 cases with severe blood loss, 2 cases with bladder injuries and 1 case with ureteral injury in transperitoneal approach group. There were 1 case with severe blood loss, 1 case with obturator never injury, 1 case with cysto-ureteral injury and 1 case with peritoneum injury in extraperitoneal approach group. For transperitoneal approach and extraperitoneal approach,the catheterization time was(14.6±3.8)d and (12.3±2.9)d, intestinal function recovery time was (2.7±0.7)d and (2.1±0.5)d, length of hospital stay was (17.0±3.6)d and (11.2±3.5)d, respectively.Conclusions Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is feasible and safe in clinical practice. Extraperitoneal approach has better vision, less impact on abdominal organs, faster recovery and shorter hospital stay comparing to transperitoneal approach.
