COMPLICATIONS OF EXTRAPERITONEOSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMIES

Background. Radical prostatectomy (RPE) is today the gold standard treatment option for locally advanced prostate cancer (PC). These operations are performed both openly and using video-assisted endosurgery. Since 2009, the Research Institute of Urology has been made 70 extraperitoneoscopic RPEs (ERPE).

Objective: to assess the complications of ERPE with the validated Clavien complication scale.

Materials and methods. The authors retrospectively analyzed the case histories of 70 patients with locally advanced PC who had undergone ERPE. The complications were allocated to 3 groups: intraoperative, early (within 1 month) and late (over 1 month) postoperative ones. All found complications were stratified using Clavien classification scale.

Results. The total number of ERPE complications accounted for 35.7%. The most common complications, such as anastomotic incompetence and blood loss that required hemotransfusion, were 9.8 and 11.3%, respectively. Rectal damage was intraoperatively found in 2 cases. Obturator nerve damage was also recognized intraoperatively and did not result in the occurrence of neurological symptoms. The severest complication (Clavien scale grade V) was pulmonary embolism causing death.

Conclusion. Postoperative complications of ERPE were observed in a small percentage of the patients and posed no serious threat to their life. The analysis of the complications of ERPE suggests that this treatment for locally advanced PC is a current safe and low-traumatic method.

1. Злокачественные новообразования в России в 2009 году (заболеваемость и смертность). Под ред. В.И. Чиссова, В.В. Старинского, Г.В. Петровой. М.: ФГУ «МНИОИ им. П.А. Герцена Росмедтехнологий», 2011. 260 с.

2. Stanford J.L., Stephenson R.A., Coyle L.M. et al. Prostate Cancer Trends 1973−1995, SEER Program, National Cancer Institute. NIH Pub. No. 99−4543, 1999. Рр. 1973−3995.ROSTA

3. Young H.H. The early diagnosis and radical cure of carcinoma of the prostate: being a study of 40 cases and a presentation of radical operation which was carried out in 4 cases. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp 1905;(16):315−21.

4. Belt E. A new anatomic approach in perineal prostatectomy. J Urol 1939;41:482−97.

5. Millin T. Retropubic Urinary surgery. London, Livingston, 1947.

6. Walsh P.C., Doncer P.J. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol 1982;128:492−7.

7. Schuessler W., Schulman P., Clayman R. et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology 1997;50:854−7.

8. Raboy A., Ferzli G., Albert P. Initial experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 1997; 50(6):849−53.

9. Медведев В.Л., Коган М.И., Костюков С.И. и др. Лапароскопическая радикальная простатэктомия. Тезисы научных трудов первого конгресса Профессиональной ассоциации андрологов России. Кисловодск, 2001.

10. Кадыров З.А., Самко А.А., Гурбанов Ш.Ш., Сулейманов С.И. Экстраперитонеоскопическая радикальная простатэктомия. Материалы V конгресса Российского общества онкоурологов. Москва. 6−8 октября 2010 г.

11. Remzi M., Klingler H.C., Tinzl M.V. et al. Morbidity of laparoscopic extraperitonealversus transperitoneal radical prostatectomy versusopen retropubic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2005;48:83−9.

12. Dindo D., Demartines N., Clavien P.A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205−13.

13. Stolzenburg J.U., Rabenalt R., Do M., Lee B. et al. Complications of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): prevention and management. World J Urol 2006;24(6):668−75.

14. Guillonneau B., Gupta R., El. Fettouh H. et al. (2003) Laparoscopic managementof rectal injury during radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2003;169:1694−6.