AB36. Three-port laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) for prostate cancer (PCa)

qian zhang,liqun zhou,zhisong he,jie jin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2223-4683.2014.s036

2014-01-01

Translational Andrology and Urology

Abstract:Objective To introduce a more cost-effective therapy of three-port laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) for prostate cancer (PCa) in developing countries like China.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Comparative study of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy

GE Guangju,ZHANG Zhigen,YU Damin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-3686.2012.05.010

2012-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate clinical value of LRP through comparing the open radical prostatectomy(ORP) and the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). Methods A total of 44 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy were chosen. Operation effect and security between 15 cases of LRP and 29 cases of ORP were compared. Results Of 15 patients underwent LRP, 1 case converted to open surgery. Mean operative time was(271.21±109.20)min, mean estimated blood loss was(395.57±310.07)ml. 29 patients underwent ORP, Mean operative time was (154.73 ±64.95)min, mean estimated blood loss was(746.62±604.55)ml. The blood loss of LRP group was less than that of the ORP group but operation time was longer(t=4.39, 2.04,P<0.05). Length of hospital stay and post operation PSA had no significantly differences(t=1.98,1.27,P>0.05). Conclusions LRP is better than ORP in controlling blood loss, and it is safe and feasible.
A Novel “Three-Port” Trocar Placement Technique for Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy

Xu Ben,Peng Yi-ji,Ma Guo-zhong,Zhang Qian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-020-02051-y

2020-01-01

World Journal of Surgical Oncology

Abstract:Background To introduce a novel “three-port” trocar placement technique for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 300 patients with PCa who received surgical treatment between November 2010 and June 2015 at our institution. They were divided into group A, three-port LRP; group B, conventional four-five-port LRP; group C, open RP (ORP); and group D, robotic-assisted RP (RARP). A learning curve was analyzed by dividing patients of group A into the early and late stages. Results All groups were comparable with regard to the preoperative characteristics except for the relatively smaller prostate volume in group A. The three-port LRP operations were performed successfully with only 8 cases of conversion to the conventional LRP. None of any severe complications or conversion to ORP occurred. In group A, the mean operative time (OT) duration was 113.8 min, the mean estimated blood loss (EBL) was 94.2 ml, the mean drainage days was 4.0 days, the mean hospitalization was 5.1 days, and 27.8% of the prostate specimen margins (PSM) were positive. The differences of OT, EBL, drainage days, hospitalization, and transfusion in group A were statistically significant among the majority of the other groups ( p < 0.05). After undergoing the early stages of a learning curve analysis in three-port LRP, the EBL was obviously decreased. Conclusions Three-port LRP is a novel technique that exhibits superior intraoperative advantages to the conventional LRP. Due to its less OT, EBL, drainage days, hospitalization, and transfusion with a shorter learning curve, it should be recommended and popularized in the clinical practice.
Single-Port Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Initial Experience And Technical Points To Reduce Its Difficulties

Wen Xing-Qiao,Huang Wen-Tao,Situ Jie,Hu Cheng,Ye Chun-Wei,Gao Xin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.2011.23.045

IF: 6.133

2011-01-01

Chinese Medical Journal

Abstract:Background Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) approaches have been reported for treating various kidney and pelvic procedures, and are feasible and effective in selected patients. In this study, we aimed to present the initial experience and evaluate the efficacy of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy performed through a single incision using a multichannel port.Methods Between July 2010 and April 2011, six patients diagnosed with early stage prostate cancer underwent LESS radical prostatectomy (RP) in our institute. A multichannel port was inserted transperitoneally through a 2-cm umbilical incision. Specially articulating and flexible laparoscopic were used. Some technical tricks and points were applied during the operation to overcome the drawbacks and reduce the difficulties of this approach. Two continuous urethrovesical sutures in both sides were performed to complete both lateral aspects of anastomosis. The two ends of the suture threads were fixed by double Lapro-Clips, instead of the difficult knot-tying.Results Total operative time was (265 +/- 43) minutes. Mean blood loss was (230 +/- 65) ml. All cases were completed successfully, without conversion to open surgery or adding additional abdomen ports. No patient required a blood transfusion and no intraoperative complications occurred. The Foley catheter was removed at the 14th day (range 12th-16th) after surgery. At the 12th week of follow-up, all patients had an undetectable prostate-specific antigen level. Two patients used 2 or 1 pad for continence daily; other patients had achieved good continence.Conclusion In selected cases, LESS-RP is feasible and effective; these technic points and the flexible-articulating instruments are helpful to reduce the operation difficulties. Chin Med J 2011;124(23):4092-4095
Comparison of Functional and Oncological Outcomes of Innovative “Three-Port” and Traditional “Four-Port” Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy in Patients with Prostate Cancer

Xu Ben,Cheng Si-da,Peng Yi-ji,Zhang Qian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-021-00787-7

2021-01-01

BMC Urology

Abstract:BackgroundTo compare the functional and oncological outcomes between innovative "three-port" and traditional "four-port" laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in patients with prostate cancer (PCa).MethodsWe retrospectively collected the data of PCa patients treated at our institutions from June 2012 to May 2016. According to the inclusion criteria, a total of 234 patients were included in the study, including 112 in group A (four-port) and 122 in group B (three-port). The perioperatively surgical characteristics, functional and oncological outcomes were compared between groups.ResultsThere were no statistical differences in the baseline parameters between these two groups. Compared with group A, the operative time (OT) and estimated blood loss (EBL) were significantly less in group B. On follow-up, the rate of positive surgical margin (PSM), prostate specific antigen (PSA) biochemical recurrence and continence after LRP did not show any statistically significant difference between the groups. An identical conclusion was also received in comparison of overall survival (OS) and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) between both groups.ConclusionsInnovative "three-port" LRP can significantly shorten the OT and reduce the EBL compared with the traditional "four-port" LRP. Meanwhile, it does not increase the rate of PSM and PSA biochemical recurrence. "Three-port" LRP could be popularized in the future in view of its superior surgical technique, considerably better functional outcomes and remarkable oncological control.
Learning Curve of an Innovative “3-Port” Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: A Single-Center Analysis from 2016 to 2019

Ben Xu,Bing-lei Ma,Yi-ji Peng,Qian Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000514390

2021-01-01

Urologia Internationalis

Abstract:Background: “Three-port” laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) has been applied as a substitution for the conventional 4- to 5-port LRP to treat prostate cancer (PCa) patients in our institution. Objective: To evaluate the learning curve of an innovative “3-port” LRP for PCa patients. Methods: 206 patients who received “3-port” LRP were retrospectively reviewed between January 2016 and December 2019 at our institution. According to the different years of operations performed, all of the patients were divided into group A (No. 1–50), group B (No. 51–107), group C (No. 108–160), and group D (No. 161–206). A learning curve was depicted by analyzing the parameters of operative time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), hospitalization, and drainage indwelling days. Results: All groups were comparable with regard to the preoperative characteristics (p > 0.05). The sloping learning curve for the surgeon showed that OT and EBL were strongly correlated with an accumulated experience when compared between group A and the other groups (p < 0.05), denoting that the surgical skill of the “3-port” LRP can be fully mastered after around 50 cases. Although no significant correlation with additional experience was observed in the hospitalization and drainage indwelling days among groups, a tendency towards less hospitalization and drainage indwelling days was still reflected. Conclusions: Our 4-year analysis based on a single-center experience exhibits that the innovative “3-port” LRP appears to be favorable with decreasing tendency in OT and EBL with experience accumulation. In view of its advantage of perioperative parameters with an evidently improved learning curve, it should be recommended in the clinical practice!
Results of study of 126 cases underwent laparoscopic radical Prostatectomy during three years' follow -up

ZHOU Jian-hua,GAO Xin,CAI Yu-bin,ZHOU Xiang-fu,QIU Jian-guang,SITU Jie,WEN Xing-qiao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-3253.2007.01.007

2007-01-01

Abstract:Objective To investigate the effect and techincal feasibility of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.Methods LRP was performed in 126 consecutive patients with localized prostate cancer by the same surgeon at our Institute between October 2000 and May 2004.The average age of the patients was (62.51±6.7)years,and the average preoperative PSA level was (13.36±10.14) ml.The distribution of patients with respect to clinical stage was:17.46%(22/126) of all patients had stage T_(1c),48.41%(61/126) had stage T_(2a),23.81%(30/ 126) had stage T_(2b),10.32% (13/126) had stage T_(2c) disease.In terms of Gleason score evaluation,2-6 points,7 points,and 8-10 points comprised 63.49%,20.63% and 15.87% of the patients, respectively.Results LRP was successfully performed in all 126 cases.The mean operative duration was 250.28min (range,110-660 min).Average blood loss during surgery was 354.05 ml (range,150- 1100 ml),and one case of severe bleeding occurred.No thromboses in the lower limb veins or other serious complications of the heart,brain,and lung were found.The average postoperative positive margin rate was 20.63%,and it was 5.26%(3/57),26.92% (7/26),32.14% (9/28),44.44% (4/9),and 50.00% (3/6),in PT_(2a),PT_(2b),PT_(2c),PT_(3a),and PT_(3b),respectively.M1 126 patients were followed up (55.69+11.81) months on average (range,36-81).The five-year biochemical recurrence-free rate was 71.0%,and it was 75% in PT_2 and 43.0% in PT3,respectively.The PSA level decreased to<0.2 ng/ ml within six months in all patients.The biochemical recurrence rate was 20.63 % (26/126) at a mean of 38.19 months (range,12-60).Ninety-nine patients (78.6%) had satisfactory urinary control after catheter removed.At six months,92.6% of the patients were continent,at one year the continent rate was 97.8%.A11 patients had satisfactory continence at 3-year follow-up.Two patients needed pads when abdominal pressure increased,but they did not required more than 1 pad/24h.Among the patients who had normal erectile function prior to surgery,51.85% (14/27) had satisfactory penile erection twelve months after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy.Conclusions Our mid-term data is consistent with other published reports,showing that the LRP technique is also safe and effective in China.It can offer equivalent oncological and functional results compared with open radical prostatectomy.
Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological and functional results of 126 patients with a minimum 3-year follow-up at a single Chinese institute.

Xin Gao,Jian-Hua Zhou,Liao-Yuan Li,Jian-Guang Qiu,Xiao-Yong Pu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/aja.2009.42

2009-01-01

Asian Journal of Andrology

Abstract:In this study we evaluate the oncological and functional results of the largest cohort of patients in China treated by laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and with at least 3 years of follow-up. 126 inconsecutive patients (range 56-78 years, median 62.5) who had an LRP were retrospectively analyzed. The mean prostate specific antigen level and Gleason score was 13.4 ng mL(-1) and 6.4, respectively. Twenty-seven patients had unilateral or bilateral nerve preservation and 29 had pelvic lymphadenectomy. Multivariate analysis was used to adjust for differences in clinical and pathological features when comparing the risk for biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS). Urinary continence was assessed by incontinence questionnaire and erectile function by the Sexual Health Inventory for Men score. The mean operative duration was 250 min and blood loss 354 mL. Five patients received blood transfusion and nine had complications, including rectal injury (two), ureteral injury (one), active bleeding (one), bladder neck stenosis (two), paralytic ileus (one), subcutaneous hematoma (one) and port-site hernia (one). The overall positive surgical margin rate was 20.6% and correlated with pathological stage and Gleason score respectively (P = 0.03, P < 0.001 respectively). All patients had >or= 3 years of follow-up (range 3-6.75 years, mean 4.6, median 4.75). At 3 years of follow-up, the overall survival rate was 100% and the bPFS was 81.0% in all patients; 124 patients (98.4%) were continent; 22 of 27 patients (81.5%) who underwent nerve preservation retained erectile function. Our series confirms that LRP is an effective, safe and precise technique at Chinese institution.
Experience of the Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy via Completely Posterior and Intrafascial Approach: A Report of 5 Cases

Gong-hui LI,You-yun ZHANG,Ming-chao WANG,Xue-dong CHEN,Shi-cheng YU,Shuai ZHANG,Guo-qing DING,Zhi-gen ZHANG

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-7410.2016.04.007

2016-01-01

Abstract:Objective To briefly introduce the initial experience of the robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) by completely posterior and intrafascial approach.Methods By retrospectively reviewing the clinical data of the 5 cases who received RALP by completely posterior and intrafascial approach between August 2016 and October 2016.Results All these 5 RALP by completely posterior and intrafascial approach were successfully completed.The operation time was between 124 and 155 minutes [(139.8±13.9) minutes on average].The estimated intraoperative blood loss was between 30 to 80 ml [(52.0±19.2) ml on average].No case with positive surgical margin was found.The serum PSA levels decreased to the criteria of radical prostatectomy 6 weeks postoperatively.Three patients were able to fully control their urination, with no need for diapers, and the other two regained full urinary continence within 1 month after surgery.Two patients recovered their erectile function within 1 month after surgery, while the other 3 patients didn't report erection function recover.Conclusions The tumor control, the postoperative urinary continence, and the erectile function recovery of the RALP by completely posterior and intrafascial approach are relatively satisfactory.It is feasible to perform this approach for selected suitable patients.
Laparoendoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP): stepwise transition from multi-site to single-site with the aid of the transurethral port

Yunfei Wei,Jingyuan Tang,Lin Yuan,Jian Su,Yang Zhang,Zhonglei Deng,Chen Zhu,Luming Shen,Ninghong Wang,Guojiang Xu,Yong Yang,Qingyi Zhu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-020-02638-0

Abstract:Purpose: To describe our initial experience with laparoendoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and a stepwise transition towards transurethral assisted laparoendoscopic single-site RP (TU-LESS RP). Patients and methods: From Jan. 2007 to Dec. 2016, 195 patients underwent RP, of which 89 patients were performed by LRP (Group A), 106 by TU-LESS RP (Group B). The peri-operative data were collected and analyzed. All data referring to patient demographics, surgery, pathology, and peri-operative outcomes were recorded. The cosmetic result was investigated by the Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire (PSAQ). Analysis of variance or Chi squared test were adopted to analyze the data. Results: 195 procedures were completed successfully. The operation time (109.6 ± 31.9 vs. 151.5 ± 87.3, P = 0.025) and anastomosis time (10.1 ± 4.8 vs. 21.8 ± 9.9, P < 0.001) of Group B was significantly reduced compared with Group A. Estimated blood loss in Group B was significantly lower than that in Group A (95.9 ± 11.1 vs. 180.2 ± 99.7, P = 0.006). About perioperative complications, Group B was also less compared with Group A (1.9% vs. 7.9%, P = 0.047). As to the usage of postoperative analgesics, Group B apparently used less than that in Group A (6.6% vs. 62.9%, P < 0.001), which is consistent with the visual analogue scale (VAS) of the two groups (1.7 ± 1.3 vs. 7.8 ± 1.1, P < 0.001). Patients in Group B were significantly more satisfied with incision healing than in group A (74.9 ± 9.3 vs. 49.7 ± 5.8, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference both in BCR rate and time between Group B and Group A. In urination control, more patients in Group B did not have urinary incontinence 3 month after RP compared with Group A (81.1% vs. 67.4%, P = 0.028). Conclusions: LESS RP is proved to be feasible for the proper patients, but it is difficult to popularized due to inconvenient operation. While by means of TU-LESS, operating difficulty can be significantly decreased. TU-LESS RP will be wildly accepted by surgeons and patients because of cosmetic satisfaction and quicker recovery.
Comparison of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Shuo WANG,Hang HUANG,Dan XIA,Ge-ming CHEN,Dan-bo FANG,Bai-hua SHEN,Bai-ye JIN,Song-liang CAI,Li-ping XIE

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1000-6702.2008.05.011

2008-01-01

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.
Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: comparison of three-port versus four-port surgeries

Zhuo Liu,Yisen Meng,Wei Yu,Jie Jin,Qian Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1000-6702.2015.08.009

2015-01-01

Abstract:Objective To compare the perioperative outcomes and short-term efficacy of three-port extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (ELRP) and four-port ELRP.Methods Two hundred patients who had undergone ELRP for prostate cancer by a single surgeon from November 2010 to October 2014 were retrospectively analyzed.Among them,95 cases underwent three-port ELRP and 105 cases underwent four-port ELRP.On the basis of traditional four-port ELRP,three-port ELRP was characterized by the omission of the trocar on the inner side of right anterior superior iliac spine.The mean age was 66.8 ± 15.5 years,and mean total prostate specific antigen (tPSA) was 15.3 ± 12.4 μg/L.There were no significant differences including age,body mass index,tPSA,clinical stages,acceptance of neoadjuvant hormone therapy,history of transurethral resection of the prostate,history of diabetes mellitus between the 2 groups (P ＞ 0.05).Patients in three-port ELRP group had significantly smaller prostate volume than fourport group (35.6 ± 16.7 ml versus 42.2 ± 24.7 ml,P ＜ 0.05).The clinical factors as operative time,estimated blood loss,hospital stay,drainage tube keeping days,pathological Gleason scores,pathological stages,positive surgical margin rates,biochemical recurrence rates and urinary incontinence rates were compared between the 2 groups.Results The three-port group had significantly shorter operative time than the four-port group (81.0 ± 18.6 min versus 103.6 ±34.6 min),less estimated blood loss (102.6 ±75.8 ml versus 217.5 ± 182.9 ml),less positive surgical margin rates (13.7％ versus 27.6％).There were 9 patients having Gleason scores more than 7 in the three-port ELRP group and 29 patients in four-port ELRP group (P ＜ 0.05).There were no significant differences of hospital stay,drainage tube keeping days,pathological stages between the 2 groups (P ＞ 0.05).Eighty-three cases in the three-port ELRP group (87.4％) were followed up for 5-19 months with the median time of 11 months.Ninety-two cases in fourport ELRP group (87.6％) were followed up for 17-52 months and the median time was 27 months.There were no significant differences of biochemical recurrence rates and urinary incontinence rates between the 2 groups(P ＞ 0.05).Conclusions Compared to four-port ELRP,three-port ELRP can provide shorter operative time,less blood loss,better negative surgical margin rates,similar oncological control and recovery of postoperative continence.In experienced hands,three-port ELRP could be a feasible and effective option for localized prostate cancer.
Laparoscopic Vs. Open Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Single-Institution, Propensity Score Matching Study in China

Zhen Yuan,Dongyan Cao,Jie Yang,Mei Yu,Keng Shen,Jiaxin Yang,Ying Zhang,Huimei Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.01107

IF: 4.7

2019-01-01

Frontiers in Oncology

Abstract:Study Objective: To compare the surgical and oncologic outcomes between open abdomen radical hysterectomy (ARH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for cervical cancer. Methods: Retrospective observational study with propensity score matching was used to ensure balanced groups for ARH and LRH. One-hundred-and-ninety-eight women with cervical cancer, 99 treated using ARH and 99 using LRH, between January 2012 and December 2014. Outcomes included disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), intra-operative factors, post-operator recovery, urinary retention, and adverse events. Moreover, the inverse probability of the treatment weighting (IPTW) method was also used. Main Results: Compared with ARH, LRH was associated with a lower volume of blood loss (P < 0.001) and transfusion rate (P < 0.001), with a broader resection of the parametrium (P < 0.001). Post-operatively, the time to first flatus was shorter for LRH than ARH (P < 0.001) but the rate of urinary retention was higher for LRH (22.2%) than ARH (8.1%; P = 0.009). DFS and OS were similar between groups. By IPTW, laparoscopy was also not associated with poorer survival in terms of DFS (HR 1.52, CI 0.799-2.891, P = 0.202) or OS (HR 0.942, HR 0.425-2.09, P = 0.883). Conclusion: Compared with ARH, LRH provided better intra-operative and post-operative outcomes, with no significant difference in oncologic outcomes and survival. Urinary retention remains a clinical issue to improve with LRH. The technology of LRH has been improved in China to address the inconsistent results of oncologic outcomes in previous studies. Whether these improvements could be effective needs to be investigated in the future.
Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy plus extended lymph nodes dissection for cases with non-extra node metastatic prostate cancer: 5-year experience in a single Chinese institution

Ming-Kun Chen,Yun Luo,Hao Zhang,Jiang-Guang Qiu,Xin-Qiao Wen,Jun Pang,Jie Si-Tu,Qi-Peng Sun,Xin Gao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-013-1395-3

2013-01-01

Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology

Abstract:Objective To investigate the functional and oncologic outcomes of patients with locally advanced or lymph node metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) treated by laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in a single Chinese institution. Methods From June 2004 to June 2011, a total of 152 cases including 105 locally advanced PCa and 47 lymph node metastatic PCa who were treated by LRP with extended lymph node dissection (ePLND) were enrolled in this study. Surgical records, urinary continence, complications, and oncologic outcomes were presented. Results The mean operation time and bleeding were 240 min and 110 ml, respectively. After 12–87 months (median 48 m) of follow-up, 91.4 and 94.7 % of the patients were urinary continence at 6 and 12 m, respectively. Eighty biochemical recurrent diseases were observed. The 3- and 5-year biochemical progression-free survival rates were 59.2 and 47.3 %, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that Gleason score (HR: 1.66, 95 % CI: 1.05–2.64, P = 0.031), pathological stage (HR: 1.64, 95 % CI: 1.2–2.23, P = 0.002), and surgical margin status (HR: 1.75, 95 % CI: 1.04–2.95, P = 0.035) were independent predictive factors for subsequent biochemical relapse. The 3- and 5-year overall and cancer-specific survival rates were 90.2, 86.0 and 95.8, 92.3 %, respectively. There were no significant differences in biochemical recurrence-free (42.6 vs. 49.5 %, P = 0.491), overall (83.4 vs. 87.3 % P = 0.503), and cancer-specific survival rates (92.3 vs. 94.9 %, P = 0.801) between lymph node-positive and -negative PCa. Conclusion With favorable functional and oncologic outcomes in this cohort of 152 patients, we concluded that LRP plus ePLND is feasible for patients with locally advanced non-extra node metastatic PCa.
Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for 33 cases

Kai HONG,Lulin MA,Yi HUANG,Guoliang WANG,Chunlei XIAO,Jian LU,Xiaojun TIAN,Lei LIU

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-8179.2008.04.014

2008-01-01

Chinese Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:Objective: To investigate the effect of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy on 33 patients with prostate cancer. Methods: From February 2004 to September 2007, we performed eLRP on 33 patients(with an average age of 69.8). All of the patients were diagnosed by pathology. Results: There were 4 cases of T1a ~1b(12%), 14 cases of T1c(42%), 5 cases of T2a-b(15%), and 10 cases of T2c(30%). The mean time period of operation was 4.6 hours. The mean blood loss was 419ml. Two cases received transfusion intraoperatively. Two cases received open surgery. Nine cases(27%) had positive surgical margins. Urine leak occurred in 3 cases, but was recovered without any intervention. Urinary catheter duration was 14~45 days(18 days on average). No true incontinence was observed. Two cases had rectal injury and underwent colostomy. The duration of follow up was 2~44 months(15.8 months on average). Serum PSA was 0~2.25ng/ml. No death occurred. Conclusion: With less complications and shorter time to recovery, extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is an effective and safe approach for localized prostate cancer.
Laparoscopic radical resection for gallbladder cancer

陈晶云,丁国平,梁霄,沈波,曹利平

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn113855-20210817-00491

2022-01-01

Abstract:Objective:To investigate the feasibility and clinical efficacy of laparoscopic radical cholecystectomy(LRC) for gallbladder cancer.Methods:The clinical data of 247 patients with gallbladder cancer who underwent radical resection from Jan 2013 to Dec 2019 at Department of General Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital affiliated to Zhejiang University School of Medicine was analyzed retrospectively. After propensity score matching, 54 patients were included in laparoscopic group and 103 in laparotomy group. The clinicopathological characteristics and the short- and long-term outcomes were compared.Results:Compared to the laparotomy group, patients in the laparoscopic group had less intraoperative blood loss [100(50,200)ml vs. 200(100,300) ml, Z=4.105, P<0.001], earlier postoperative oral diet[1.0(1.0,2.0) d vs. 2.0(1.0,4.0) d, Z=4.157, P<0.001]and drainage removal[6.5(4.0,12.5) d vs. 9.0(6.0,16.0) d, Z=2.769, P=0.006], shorter hospital stay[7.0(5.0,9.3) d vs. 9.0(8.0,14.0) d, Z=3.923, P<0.001]. The number of lymph node dissection in laparoscopic group was significantly lesser than that in open group [6(4,9) vs. 8(5,12), Z=2.639, P=0.008]. There were no significant differences between the two groups in postoperative complications, short-term and long-term survival outcomes. Conclusions:Laparoscopic radical surgery for gallbladder cancer is as safe and feasible, and identical survival prognosis as open surgery, and moreover a less traumatic procedure.
Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological and functional results of 170 patients with a minimum 5-year follow-up

GAO Xin,QIU Jian-guang,ZHOU Xiang-fu,WEN Xing-qiao,SUN Qi-peng,PANG Jun,LI Liao-yuan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-3253.2010.01.002

2010-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate the oncological and functional results of the largest cohort of patients in China treated by laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and with at least 5 years of follow-up. Methods From October 2000 to February 2005, 170 consecutive patients who had a LRP were retrospectively analyzed. All operations were performed by a single experienced surgeon (X. G.). Biochemical progression was defined as a PSA level of ≥0.2 ng/mL at two consecutive time-points during follow-up after LRP. Urinary continence was defined as no pads or one diaper/24h by incontinence questionnaire. Results The mean operative duration was 240 min and blood loss 100 ml. Six patients had complications, including rectal injury (three), ureteral injury (two), active bleeding (one). The overall positive surgical margin rate was 24.1% and correlated with pathological stage and Gleason score respectively (P<0.001, P<0.001 respectively). All patients had ≥5 years of follow-up (range 60–112 months, mean 71). At 5-year of follow-up, the biochemical progression-free survival was 79.4% in all patients. In all, 163 patients (95.9%) were continent at 1-year of followup and all patients were continent at 5-year of follow-up. Conclusions Our present series confirms that LRP is an effective, safe and precise technique at Chinese institution with excellent intermediate-term oncological and functional results.
Analysis of clinical effect of transperitoneal approach and extraperitoneal approach for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Qingshui Zheng,Hai Cai,Ning Xu,Xueyi Xue,Yong Wei,Xiaodong Li,Jinbei Huang,Tao Jiang,Xionglin Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-0848.2013.12.008

2013-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate the efficiency of transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (T-LRP) and extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (E-LRP). Methods Clinical data 130 patients with prostate cancer who underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy from January 2010 and December 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. Of these patients, 72 were done by transperitoneal style and 58 by extraperitoneal style. The BMI, preoperative PSA, preoperative Gleason grade, c-TNM, operating time, bleeding volume during operation, blood transfusions rate, postoperative pain, the recovery time of intestinal function, the duration of catheterization, hospitalization stay after operation, complication, p-TNM, continence rate were comparatively analyzed. Results Operations of two groups were all successfully performed. One case of T-LRP group and 1 case of E-LRP were converted to open surgery. The mean operating time of T-LRP group was longer than that of the E-LRP group, (120.6±92.6)min vs.(110.8±100.5)min ,and there was statistical difference between these two groups(P<0.001). The mean bleeding volume during operation of T-LRP group was more than that of the E-LRP group , (110.9±50.6)ml vs.(95.8±123.5)ml, there was a statistical difference between these two groups(P<0.05). The duration of catheterization of T-LRP group was longer than that of the E-LRP group, (13.42±4.64)days vs.(12.33±4.82)days, there was a statistical difference between these two groups (P<0.05). The hospitalization of T-LRP group was longer than that of the E-LRP group, (14.54±5.25)days vs.(11.63±5.82)days, there was a statistical difference between these two groups(P<0.05). 120 patients were followed up for 6~42months, and the median time was 32 months. In the T-LRP group and E-LRP group, the continence rate at the time of pulling the urine tube was 48.6%(35/72)vs34.5%(20/58); the six-month continence rate was 63.8%(46/72)vs. 89.6%(52/58), there was statistical difference between these two groups(P<0.05, P<0.001,separately).But there was no statistical difference between these two groups in the one-year continence rate (P=0.324). Conclusion E-LRP and T-LRP have the equivalent oncological and functional outcomes. ELRP is superior to T-LRP with respect to faster recovery of continence. E-LRP shows some advantage over T-LRP including the small of intraoperative trauma ,short operation time, fewer abdominal complications, quicker recovery, etc.
Preliminary Experience with Transperitoneal Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Radical Nephrectomy Using a Home-Made Single-Port Device in China.

Bi Hai,Ma Lulin,Hou Xiaofei,Zhang Shudong,Wang Guoliang,Zhao Lei

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.20130973

2014-01-01

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery represents a technique to further reduce morbidity and scarring associated with surgery. We present our preliminary experience with transperitoneal LESS radical nephrectomy (RN) using a home-made single-port device in China.METHODS:From July 2010 to November 2011, eleven patients with renal tumor not greater than T2 underwent LESS-RN by an experienced laparoscopic surgeon. A home-made single-port device was used through a 5-cm umbilical incision. A combination of standard and articulating laparoscopic instruments was used. The sequence of steps of LESS-RN was similar to transperitoneal laparoscopic RN. Patient characteristics, perioperative variables and postoperative outcomes were recorded and analyzed.RESULTS:Except for two transperitoneal laparoscopic conversions and one hand-assisted laparoscopic conversion, the other procedures were completed successfully without conversion to open surgery. The mean operative time was 224.5 (155-297) minutes, estimated blood loss was 270.9 (50-900) ml, and hospital stay was 10.4 (5-15) days. The mean visual analog pain scale (VAPS) on the first postoperative day was 4.0/10. Final pathological analysis revealed renal cell carcinoma in all cases with a stage distribution of three T1a, five T1b, and three T2a tumors. With the mean follow-up period of 21.4 (12-28) months, all patients were alive without evidence of tumor recurrence or metastasis, and were satisfied with the appearance of the scars.CONCLUSION:Transperitoneal LESS-RN using a home-made single-port device is technically feasible and safe in a selected group of patients (low body mass index and stage tumor) and has excellent cosmetic results. Although preliminary oncologic outcome is not compromised, the long-term evaluation of these patients is awaited.
AB077. Explore the clinical experience of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for complex cases

Xiaojun Lu,Shancheng Ren,Yifan Chang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2018.ab077

2018-09-01

Translational Andrology and Urology

Abstract:AB077. Explore the clinical experience of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for complex cases

urology & nephrology,andrology
Comparative studies of robot-assisted surgery,laparoscopic,and retropubic radical prostatectomy

WANG Guomin,XU Zhibing,JIANG Shuai,ZHANG Jianping,LIU Yujun,ZHU Tongyu

2011-01-01

Abstract:Objective To assess the efficiency and safety of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy(RARP) and to compare it with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy(LRP) and retropubic radical prostatectomy(RRP). Methods We performed a non-randomized,prospective comparative study to evaluate 5 consecutive patients receiving RARP with da Vinci S surgical system(da Vinci Intuitive Surgical Inc.,Sunnyvale,CA,USA) from July 2009 to May 2010.And we enrolled 5 consecutive patients for LRP and 5 for RRP during the same period.The clinical data of patients in the above three groups were compared and analyzed.Results All patients in the 3 groups received successful operation.The 5 patients in the RARP group encountered no technique events and they were not transferred to other operations.For RARP.the median preoperative set-up time of the da Vinci S surgical system was 55(45-90) min.The median operating time was 240(220-300) min,the estimated blood loss was 200(50 - 600) mL and no patients needed transfusion.The patients were ambulant between 2nd and 3rd postoperative day and discharged on postoperative day 5 to 8.Foley catheter was removed on postoperative day 10 to 14.Histopathology confirmed that one patient had positive surgical margin,and the t-PSA was less than 0.2 ng/mL during follow-up(1-12 months).Two cases had slight incontinence during one month after operation. For the 5 patients receiving LRP,the median operation time was 200(180-270) min,and mean blood loss was 150(50-500) mL,with no blood transfusion.The patients were ambulant between the 4th and 5th postoperative day and discharged on postoperative day 6 to 16;the Foley catheter was removed on postoperative day 14 to 21.Histopathology confirmed that one patient had positive surgical margin,and the t-PSA was less than 0.2 ng/mL during follow-up.Conclusions Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has the advantage of mini-invasiveness. less blood loss,rapid postoperative recovery,and it is safe,reliable and should be taken as the first choice for radical prostatectomy.RARP offers better results than LRP and RRP in terms of minimal invasiveness.RARP is becoming the preferred approach for radical prostatectomy.

AB36. Three-port laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) for prostate cancer (PCa)

Comparative study of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy

A Novel “Three-Port” Trocar Placement Technique for Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy

Single-Port Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Initial Experience And Technical Points To Reduce Its Difficulties

Comparison of Functional and Oncological Outcomes of Innovative “Three-Port” and Traditional “Four-Port” Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy in Patients with Prostate Cancer

Learning Curve of an Innovative “3-Port” Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: A Single-Center Analysis from 2016 to 2019

Results of study of 126 cases underwent laparoscopic radical Prostatectomy during three years' follow -up

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological and functional results of 126 patients with a minimum 3-year follow-up at a single Chinese institute.

Experience of the Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy via Completely Posterior and Intrafascial Approach: A Report of 5 Cases

Laparoendoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP): stepwise transition from multi-site to single-site with the aid of the transurethral port

Comparison of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: comparison of three-port versus four-port surgeries

Laparoscopic Vs. Open Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Single-Institution, Propensity Score Matching Study in China

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy plus extended lymph nodes dissection for cases with non-extra node metastatic prostate cancer: 5-year experience in a single Chinese institution

Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for 33 cases

Laparoscopic radical resection for gallbladder cancer

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological and functional results of 170 patients with a minimum 5-year follow-up

Analysis of clinical effect of transperitoneal approach and extraperitoneal approach for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Preliminary Experience with Transperitoneal Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Radical Nephrectomy Using a Home-Made Single-Port Device in China.

AB077. Explore the clinical experience of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for complex cases

Comparative studies of robot-assisted surgery,laparoscopic,and retropubic radical prostatectomy