medigraphic.com
Organo Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Urología

2023, Number 4

Next >>

Rev Mex Urol 2023; 83 (4)

Evolution and early and late postoperative complications of radical prostatectomy: open vs. laparoscopic

Bojórquez-Beltrán DA, Sánchez-Puente JC, Rodelo-Morales NI, Sotelo-Quiñónez TI

Language: Spanish
References: 24
Page: 1-14
PDF size: 296.89 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the evolution and early and late postoperative complications of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, identifying its benefits and analyzing the advantages of one technique over the other.
Design: Exploratory, observational, cross-sectional, retrospective and comparative. 100 patients submitted to radical prostatectomy for pros- tate cancer in the period from March 01, 2019 to September 30, 2022. Descriptive analyses of frequencies and cross-tabulations were perfor- med. Mean, variance and standard deviation were calculated. Kolmogo- rov-Smirnov analysis was performed to test the normality of the data.
Results: The significance level established (p=‹0.05), determined a non-normal distribution for the sample data. The mean, variance and standard deviation for hospitalization time (X̅ =1.62, S.D.=.749, σ²=.561), postsurgical bleeding (X̅ =1.92, S.D.=.273, σ²=.074) and transfusion (X̅ =1.91, S.D.=.288, σ²=.083) as postsurgical complications were similar. Eighty-four percent of patients had comorbidities, mostly undergoing open surgery (74%).
Limitations: Its main limitation is the validity to the analysis due to the sample size.
Originality: A comparative analysis with greater precision of radical prostatectomy in its different techniques has not been performed in northeastern Mexico.
Conclusions: The present study demonstrated that laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is a good procedure over open radical prostatectomy to treat prostate cancer.


REFERENCES

  1. Gutiérrez-Córdova J, Abad-Licham M, Astigueta-Pérez J. Prostatectomía radical abierta y laparoscópica: comparación de resultados oncológicos y funcionales. Rev Mex Urol. 2021;81(4):1–11. doi: https://doi. org/10.48193/revistamexicanadeurologa. v81i4.732

  2. Collura-Merlier S, Reyes-Utrera C, Herrera- Cáceres JO, Ochoa-López JM, Rivera-Ramírez JA, Sandoval-Barba H, et al. Experiencia inicial en prostatectomía radical laparoscópica. Rev Mex Urol. 2015;75(6):320–4. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.uromx.2015.09.001

  3. Rahnama’i MS, Marcelissen T, Geavlete B, Tutolo M, Hüsch T. Current Management of Post-radical Prostatectomy Urinary Incontinence. Front Surg. 2021;8:647656. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2021.647656

  4. Fiol Llamas O, Mena Siquier J, Ortiz de Urbina Estradé P, Puigserver Bibiloni R, Sopetrán Jaume V. Prostatectomía radical abierta vs laparoscópica. Enfuro. 2010;(114):10–3.

  5. Ilic D, Evans SM, Allan CA, Jung JH, Murphy D, Frydenberg M. Laparoscopic and robotic‐assisted versus open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017;(9). Doi: https://doi. org/10.1002/14651858.CD009625.pub2

  6. Basillote JB, Ahlering TE, Skarecky DW, Lee DI, Clayman RV. Laparoscopic radicalprostatectomy: review and assessment of an emerging technique. Surg Endosc. 2004;18(12):1694–711. doi: https://doi. org/10.1007/s00464-003-8267-x

  7. Cayetano-Alcaraz AA, Sotomayor-de-Zavaleta M, Castillejos-Molina RA, Gabilondo-Navarro F, Feria-Bernal G, Rodríguez-Covarrubias FT. Resultados oncológicos en enfermedad N1 posterior a la prostatectomía radical. Rev Mex Urol.2016;76(1):23–8. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.uromx.2015.11.004

  8. Gil-Villa SA, Campos-Salcedo JG, López- Silvestre JC, Estrada-Carrasco CE, Mendoza-Álvarez LA, Díaz-Gómez C, et al. Prostatectomía radical robótica en pacientes con cáncer de próstata de alto riesgo.Rev Mex Urol. 2018;78(1):9–18. doi: https://doi. org/10.24245/revmexurol.v78i1.1674

  9. Trujillo-Hernández FC-MB. Métodos diagnósticos utilizados en la predicción de recurrencia en cáncer de próstata tras prostatectomía radical. Rev Mex Urol.2015;75(4). Doi: https://doi.org/10.48193/ revistamexicanadeurologa.v75i4.267

  10. Salgado Arroyo V, Santaella Torres F, Arenas Osuna J, Sánchez Martínez LC. Recurrencia del cáncer de próstata al comparar prostatectomía radical abierta contra laparoscópica durante cinco años de estudio en el Hospital de Especialidades del CMN ‘La Raza’. Boletin del Colegio Mexicano de Urologia. 2014;29(1):11–9.

  11. Cordeiro P, Novás S, Honorato L, Martínez- Couceiro S, García-Freire C. Prostatectomía radical laparoscópica y abierta: experiencia en nuestro centro. Rev Mex Urol. 2015 Sep 1;75(5):247–52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. uromx.2015.06.005

  12. Sandhu GS, Nepple KG, Tanagho YS, Andriole GL. Laparoscopic prostatectomy for prostate cancer: continued role in urology. Surg OncolClin N Am. 2013;22(1):125–41, vii. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.soc.2012.08.001

  13. Cabrera-Ledesma JD, Sandoval F, Torres- Aguilar J, Cabrera-Ledesma JD, Sandoval F, Torres-Aguilar J. Incidencia y factores de riesgo de estenosis de la anastomosis vesicouretral en pacientes operados de prostatectomía radical extraperitoneal videoendoscópica. Rev Mex Urol.2018;78(4):283–9. doi: https://doi. org/10.24245/revmexurol.v78i4.2023

  14. Aponte H, Sotelo R, Andrade C, Cevallos P, Melo F, Ortiz JJ, et al. Estudio comparativo prostatectomía radical abierta (PRR) vs. Laparoscópica (PRL). Evaluación de resultados. Experiencia Hospital de San José. Revista Urología Colombiana. 2006;XV(2):125–32.

  15. Rosenberg JE, Jung JH, Edgerton Z, Lee H, Lee S, Bakker CJ, et al. Retzius-sparing versus standard robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;8(8):CD013641. doi: https://doi. org/10.1002/14651858.cd013641.pub2

  16. Golomb D, Berto FG, Bjazevic J, Gomez JA, Chin JLK, Luke PP, et al. Simple prostatectomy using the open and robotic approaches for lower urinary tract symptoms: A retrospective, case- control series. Can Urol Assoc J. 2022;16(1):E39–43. doi: https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.7351

  17. Ríos-Cruz AM-GD. Calidad de vida sexual posterior a prostatectomía radical. Revista Mexicana de Urología. 2014;74(3). https:// doi.org/10.48193/revistamexicanadeurologa. v74i3.177

  18. Schaeffer EM, Loeb S, Walsh PC. The case for open radical prostatectomy. Urol Clin North Am. 2010 Feb;37(1):49–55, Table of Contents. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2009.11.008

  19. Schifano N, Capogrosso P, Tutolo M, Dehò F, Montorsi F, Salonia A. How to Prevent and Manage Post-Prostatectomy Incontinence: A Review. World J Mens Health. 2021;39(4):581– 97. doi: https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.200114

  20. Arroyo-Kuribreña JC, Soto-Vega E. Evolución y optimización con los avances en suturas y energía de procedimientos urológicos laparoscópicos en Puebla. Revista Mexicana de Urología. 2022;82(4):1–11. doi: https:// doi.org/10.48193/revistamexicanadeurologa. v82i4.894

  21. Muñoz JAH. Primer estudio mexicano comparativo entre prostatectomía radical abierta y asistida por robot. Revista Mexicana de Urología. 2017;77(3).doi: https://doi.org/10.48193/ revistamexicanadeurologa.v77i3.24

  22. García-Vásquez FS-GR. Resultados de la prostatectomía retropúbica abierta y adenomectomía prostática laparoscópica en38 casos de hiperplasia prostática benigna tratados en el Hospital General del Estado de Sonora. Revista Mexicana de Urología. 2014;74(6). DOI:https://doi.org/10.48193/ revistamexicanadeurologa.v74i6.220

  23. Viveros-Contreras KLS-GC. Calidad de vida en pacientes con cáncer de próstata, operados de prostatectomía radical laparoscópica. Revista Mexicana de Urología. 2014;74(3). Doi: https:// doi.org/10.48193/revistamexicanadeurologa. v74i3.172

  24. Corrales-Acosta E, Corrales M, Aquino AEA, García GM. Artificial urinary sphincter outcomes for post-radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence. A narrative review. Revista Mexicana de Urología. 2021;81(6):1–13. doi: https://doi.org/10.48193/ revistamexicanadeurologa.v81i6.826




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com