Journal List > Korean J Urol > v.49(9) > 1005183

TOOLS
Jung, Cho, Hong, Kim, Park, and Hwang: Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: The Intraoperative and Perioperative Complications in 150 Cases
Original Article
Korean Journal of Urology

Korean Journal of Urology 2008; 49(9): 804-808.

Published online: 30 September 2008

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2008.49.9.804

Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: The Intraoperative and Perioperative Complications in 150 Cases

Jin-Woo Jung, Hyuk Jin Cho, Sung-Hoo Hong, Joon Chul Kim, Yong Hyun Park, Tae-Kon Hwang

Department of Urology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.

tkhwang@catholic.ac.kr

Received 19 May 2008       Accepted 15 July 2008

Copyright © 2008 The Korean Urological Association

Abstract

Purpose

We retrospectively evaluated the intraoperative and perioperative complications of 150 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies that were performed at our institution.

Materials and Methods

Between July 2001 and March 2007, 150 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The inpatient and outpatient medical records were reviewed. We divided the patients into three groups: the first 50 patients in group I, the middle 50 patients in group II and last 50 patients in group III. The major and minor complications were evaluated in each group.

Results

The overall complication rate was 36%. The major complication rate was 7% and the minor complication rate was 29%. The major complication rate was 18% in group I, 2% in group II and 0% in group III. The minor complication rate was 48% in group I, 24% in group II and 16% in group III. The result showed that the complication rate declined with accumulating experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (p<0.05).

Conclusions

Although laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is a technically demanding procedure and it has a steep learning curve, the complication rate declined with accumulating experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The complications were acceptable because they were not severe and they were managed with little difficulty.

Keywords: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, Complications

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1
The major complication and minor complication show a tendency to decline (p-value for the major complications <0.05, p-value for the minor complications <0.05).
kju-49-804-g001
Table 1
Characteristics of the patients undergoing LRP
kju-49-804-i001

LRP: laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, BMI: body mass index, PSA: prostate-specific antigen

Table 2
The intraoperative and perioperative parameters of the patients undergoing LRP
kju-49-804-i002

LRP: laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, PNLD: pelvic lymph node dissection

Table 3
Intraoperative and perioperative complications associated with LRP
kju-49-804-i003

Group I: case 1-50, Group II : 51-100, Group III: 101-150, LRP: laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

References

1. Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Rozet F, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Preliminary evaluation after 28 interventions. Presse Med. 1998. 27:1570–1574.
2. Jang J, Cha SH, Kim DB, Kim CJ, Hwang TG. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Korean J Urol. 2002. 43:342–345.
3. Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology. 1997. 50:854–857.
4. Gregori A, Simonato A, Lissiani A, Bozzola A, Galli S, Gaboardi F. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: perioperative complications in an intial and consecutive series of 80 cases. Eur Urol. 2003. 44:190–194.
5. Guillonneau B, Gupta R, El fettouh H, Cathelineau X, Baumert H, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic management of rectal injury during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2003. 169:1694–1696.
6. Katz R, Borkowski T, Hoznek A, Salomon L, de la Taille A, Abbou CC. Operative management of rectal injuries during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2003. 62:310–313.
7. Castillo O, Bodden E, Vitagliano G. Management of rectal injury during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Int Braz J Urol. 2006. 32:428–433.
8. Eichel L, McDougall EM, Clayman RV. Wein AJ, Kavaoussi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW, Peter CA, editors. Basic of laparoscopic urology surgery. Campbell-Walsh urology. 2006. 9th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders;213.
9. Guillonneau B, Rozet F, Cathelineu X, Lay F, Barret E, Doublet JD, et al. Perioperative complications of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris 3-year experience. J Urol. 2002. 167:51–56.
10. Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, Do M, Lee B, Truss MC, McNeill A, et al. Complications of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): prevention and management. World J Urol. 2006. 24:668–675.
11. Champault G, Cazacu F, Taffinder N. Serious trocar accidents in laparoscopic surgery: a French suvey of 103,853 operations. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1996. 6:367–370.
12. Chandler JG, Corson SL, Way LW. Three spectra of laparoscopic entry access injuries. J Am Coll Surg. 2001. 192:478–490.
13. Witz M, Lehmann JM. Major vascular injury during laparoscopy. Br J Surg. 1997. 84:800–806.
14. Vallancien G, Cathelineau X, Baumert H, Doublet J, Guillonneau B. Complications of tranperitoneal laparoscopic surgery in urology: review of 1,311 procedures at a single center. J Urol. 2002. 168:23–26.
15. Nadu A, Salomon L, Hoznek A, Olsson LE, Saint F, de La Taille A, et al. Early removal of the catheter after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2001. 166:1662–1664.
16. Lee CH, Seo SI, Kim JC, Hwang TK. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Korean J Urol. 2003. 44:617–623.
17. Lein M, Stibane I, Mansour R, Hege C, Roigas J, Wille A, et al. Complications, urinary continence, and oncologic outcome of 1,000 laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomies-experience at the Charité Hospital Berlin, Campus Mitte. Eur Urol. 2006. 50:1278–1282.
TOOLS
Similar articles