THE COMPLICATIONS FOLLOWING RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY VIA OPEN OR LAPAROSCOPIC APPROACH, A COMPARISON OF RESULTS ACCORDING TO THE CLAVIEN SYSTEM SCALE
Authors:
Petr Morávek; Miloš Broďák; Josef Košina; Abdulbaset Hafuda; Petr Prošvic; Hynek Šafránek; Petr Morávek jr.
Authors‘ workplace:
Urologická klinika FN a LF UK v Hradci Králové
Published in:
Ces Urol 2015; 19(1): 56-63
Category:
Original Articles
Overview
Aim:
The aim of the study was to compare frequency and severity of complications following radical prostatectomies performed using open surgery between 1993–2012 and a laparoscopic approach between 2008–2012.
Method:
The comparison was performed on 100 consecutive open and laparoscopic surgeries. Early and long-term complications were assessed according to the Clavien system classification using the scale I–V.
Results:
When evaluating early complications on the Clavien scale II, the laparoscopic approach resulted in a lower number of complications. When comparing complications on the Clavien scale III, no differences were observed between the two groups. No complications were recorded for grade IV and V. No difference was noted when the frequency of late complications was compared between the two surgical techniques.
Conclusions:
Both open and laparoscopic approaches to radical prostatectomy were safe and comparable according to the Clavien system for evaluating complications. The laparoscopic approach resulted in a slightly lower incidence of mild complications, grade II, in the early postoperative period. The frequency and severity of more serious complications, grade III, and the late complications were almost the same.
KEY WORDS:
Radical prostatectomy, complications, Clavien system.
Sources
1. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg 2004; 240(2): 205–213.
2. Clavien PA, Barkun J, Oliveira ML, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: Five year Experience. Ann Surg 2009; 250(2): 187–196.
3. Morgan M, Smith N, Thomas K, Murphy DG. Is Clavien the new standard for reporting urologic complications? BJU International 2009; 104: 434–436.
4. Yao XD, Liu XJ, Zhang SL, Dai B, Zhang HL, Ye DW. Perioperative complications of radica retropubic prostatectomy in patiens with locally advanced prostate cancer: a comparison with clinmically localised prostate cancer. Asian J Androl 2013; 15(2): 241–245.
5. Hsu EI, et al. Influence of body weight and prostate volum on intraoperative, perioperative and postoparative outcomes after radiál retropubic propstatectomy. Urology 2003; 61(3): 601–606.
6. Gacci M, Sebastianelli A, Salvi M, et al. Role of abdominal obesity for functional outcomes and complications in men treated with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: results of the Multicenter Italian Report on Radical Prostatectomy (MIRROR) study. Scand J Urol 2014; 48(2): 138–145.
7. Caras RJ, Lustik MB, Kern SQ, Sterbis JR, McMann LP. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy demonstrates less morbidity than open radical prostatectomy: ananalysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program diabase with a focus on surgical trainee involement. J Endourol 2014; 28(3): 298–305.
8. Gonzalgo ML, Pavlovich CP, Trock BJ, et al. Classification and trends of periopoerative morbidities following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2005; 174: 135–139.
9. Rabbani F, Yunis LH, Pinochet R, et al. Comprehensive standardized report of complications of retropubic radiál prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2010; 57(3): 391–394.
10. Lopenberg B, Noldus J, Holz A, Paliksaar RJ. Reporting complikations after open radical retropubic prostatectřomy using the Martin kriteria. J Urol 2010; 184(3): 829–830.
11. Stolzenburg JU, Truss MC, Bekos A, Do M, Rabenalt R, et al. Does the extraperitoneal laparoscopic approach improve the outcome of radical prostatectomy? Curr Urol Rep 2004; 5: 115–122.
12. Hiess M, Ponholzer A, Lamche M, Schramek P, Seitz C. The Clavien-Dindo classification of complications used for radical prostatectomy. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2014 Jun 5 (Epub akad of print).
13. Lepor H, et al. Intraoperative and postoperastive complications of radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1,000 cases J Urol 2001; 166(5): 1729–1733.
14. Lepor H, et al.Contemporary evaluation of optative parameters and complications related to open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2003; 62(4): 702–706.
15. Hisasue C, et al. Early and late complications of radiál retropubic prostatectomy: experience in a single institution. Jpn J ClinOncol 2004; 34(5): 274–279.
16. Guillonneau B, Rozet F, Cathelineaum X, et al. Perioperative complications ofaparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris 3-year experience. J Urol 2002; 167(1): 851–856.
17. Vallancien G, Cathelineau X, Baumert H, Doublet JD, Guillonneau B. Complications oftrans peritoneal laparoscopic Surgery in urology: review of 1,311 procedures a single center. J Urol 2002; 168: 23–26.
18. Gregori A, et al. Laparoscopic radiál prostatectomy: perioperastive complications in anitial and consecutive series of 80 cases. Eur Urol 2003; 44(2): discussion 194.
19. Tse E, et al. Laparoscopic radiál prostatectomy – results of 200 consecutive cases in a Canadian medici institution. Can J Urol 2004; 11(2): 2172–2185.
20. Zhao Z, Meng Y, He R, Zhang Q, Li X, Zhan C, et al. Comparation of the transperitoneal and extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. ZhonghuaWaiKe Za Z HI 2014; 52(2): 135–138.
21. Erdogrut T. et al. Comparison of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using match-pair analysis. Eur Urol 2004 sep; 46(3): 312–319.
22. Artibani W, et al. Is laparoscopic radical prostatectomy better than traditional retropubic radcal prostatectomy? Ananalysis of peri-operative morbidity in two contemporary series in Italy. Eur Urol 2003; 44(4): 401–406.
23. Froehner M, Novotny V, Koch R, Leike S, Twelker l, Wirth MP. Perioperative complications after radical prostatectomy: open versus robot-assisted laparoscopic approach. Urol Int 2013; 90(3): 312–315.
24. ChengWM, Lin TP, Lin CC, Huang EY, Chung HJ, et al. Standardized report for early complications of radical prostatectomy. J Chin Med Assoc 2014; 77(5): 234–241.
25. Khoder WY, Trottmann M, Stuber A, Stief CG, Becker AJ. Earelly incontinence after radical prostatectomy: a community based retrospective analysis in 911 men and implications for preoperative copunseling. Urol ONCOL 2013; 31(7): 1006–1011.
26. Nam RK, Cheung P, Herschorn S, Saskin R, Su J. Incidence of complications other than urinary inkontinence or erectile dysfunction after readical prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a population-based y cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15(2): 223–231.
27. Löppenberg B, von Bodman C, Brock M, Roghmann F, Noldus J, Palissar RJ. Effect of perioperative complications and functional outcomes on heals-related quality of life after radical prostatectomy. Qual Life Res 2014; 6 (Epub akad of print).
Labels
Paediatric urologist Nephrology UrologyArticle was published in
Czech Urology
2015 Issue 1
Most read in this issue
- IMMUNOSTIMULATION WITH POLYBACTERIAL LYSATE (URIVAC®) IN PREVENTING RECURRENT LOWER URINARY TRACT INFECTIONS
- COMPLICATIONS FOLLOWING LOCAL APPLICATION OF INORGANIC MATERIAL INTO THE SUBCUTANEOUS TISSUE OF PENIS
- ONCOLOGICAL TREATMENT OF PENILE CANCER FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF RADIATION ONCOLOGIST
- EMPHYSEMATOUS PYELONEPHRITIS – DESCRIPTION OF SIX CASES