Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer in Asian Renal Transplant Recipients

2016 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 905-909 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Iizuka ◽  
Y. Hashimoto ◽  
T. Kondo ◽  
T. Takagi ◽  
M. Inui ◽  
...  
BMC Urology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kun Sirisopana ◽  
Pocharapong Jenjitranant ◽  
Premsant Sangkum ◽  
Kittinut Kijvikai ◽  
Suthep Pacharatakul ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The incidence of prostate cancer in renal transplant recipients (RTR) is similar to the general population. Radical prostatectomy (RP) is the standard of care in the management of clinically localized cancer, but is considered complicated due to the presence of adhesions, and the location of transplanted ureter/kidney. To date, a few case series or studies on RP in RTR have been published, especially in Asian patients. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety and report the experience with RP on RTR. Methods We retrospectively reviewed data of 1270 patients who underwent RP from January 2008 to March 2020, of which 5 patients were RTR. All available baseline characteristics, perioperative and postoperative data (operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, length of hospital stay, complication), pathological stage, Gleason score, surgical margin status, and pre/postoperative creatinine were reviewed. Results Of the 5 RTR who underwent RPs (1 open radical prostatectomy (ORP), 1 laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), 2 robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies (RALRP), and 1 Retzius-sparing RALRP (RS-RALRP)) prostatectomy, the mean age (± SD) was 70 (± 5.62) years. In LRP and RALRP cases, the standard ports were moved slightly medially to prevent graft injury. The mean operative time ranged from 190 to 365 min. The longest operative time and highest EBL (630 ml) was the ORP case due to severe adhesion in Retzius space. For LRP and RALRP cases, the operative times seemed comparable and had EBL of ≤ 300 ml. All RPs were successful without any major intra-operative complication. There was no significant change in graft function. The restorations of urinary continence were within 1 month in RS-RALRP, approximately 6 months in RALRP, and about 1 year in ORP and LRP. Three patients with positive surgical margins had prostate-specific antigen (PSA) persistence at the first follow-up and 1 had later PSA recurrence. Two patients with negative margins were free from biochemical recurrence at 47 and 3 months after their RP. Conclusions Our series suggested that all RP techniques are safe and feasible mode of treatment for localized prostate cancer in RTR.


Urology ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 80 (6) ◽  
pp. 1267-1272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony J. Polcari ◽  
Joseph C. Allen ◽  
Rafael Nunez-Nateras ◽  
Chinedu O. Mmeje ◽  
Paul E. Andrews ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 79 ◽  
pp. S499-S500
Author(s):  
G. Marra ◽  
F. Peretti ◽  
G. Calleris ◽  
M. Oderda ◽  
L. Biancone ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Girdhar Singh Bora ◽  
Prem Nath Dogra ◽  
Prabhjot Singh

ABSTRACT Introduction Bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) accounts for more than 75% of cases of vesical calculi in patients aged above 50 years. There are special group of patients who have large vesical calculus with localized adenocarcinoma prostate requiring treatment for both bladder calculi and malignancy. We are sharing our technique of extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RRP) and removal of vesical calculus in two patients of localized adenocarcinoma prostate with large vesical calculus (≥ 4 cm). Two patients with localized prostate cancer with large vesical stone underwent simultaneous cystolithotomy and extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. Their perioperative period was uneventful. Large vesical stones with localized prostate cancer can be easily managed simultaneously by an experienced robotic surgeon. How to cite this article Bora GS, Dogra PN, Singh P. Robotic Management of Localized Adenocarcinoma Prostate with Large Vesical Calculus: A Report of Two Cases. J Postgrad Med Edu Res 2016;50(1):36-38.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document