TY  - JOUR
T1  - Laparoskopik Radikal Prostatektomi Deneyimlerimiz: Tek Merkez Sonuçları
TT  - Our Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Experiences: Single Center Results
AU  - Uçar, Murat
AU  - Akkoç, Ali
AU  - Oksay, Taylan
AU  - Çapkın, Tahsin
AU  - Soyupek, Sedat
AU  - Koşar, Alim
PY  - 2017
DA  - December
Y2  - 2017
DO  - 10.30565/medalanya.340737
JF  - Acta Medica Alanya
JO  - Acta Med. Alanya
PB  - Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat Üniversitesi
WT  - DergiPark
SN  - 2587-0319
SP  - 135
EP  - 138
VL  - 1
IS  - 3
LA  - tr
AB  - Amaç: Kiliniğimizdelaparoskopik radikal prostatektomi operasyonu yapılan hastaların özellikleriile onkolojik ve fonksiyonel sonuçlarının değerlendirilmesi.Hastalarve Yöntem:Kliniğimizde 2008-2011 yılları arasında baştan sona laparoskopik olarak yapılan23 radikal prostatektomi vakasıretrospektif olaraktarandı.Hastaların preoperatif özellikleri, perioperatif vepostoperatif komplikasyonları ve bunların tedavileri, biyokimyasal nüksoranları incelendi.Bulgular: Hastaların operasyonsonrası prostatektomi patolojileri 19 hastada Gleason skoru 3+3 (%82,6), 3hastada 3+4 (%13), 1 hastada 4+3 (%4,3) olarak geldi. Cerrahi sınır 5(%21,7) hastada pozitif (+) olaraktespit edildi. TNM 2009 evrelemesine göre 4 (%17,3) hastanın patolojisi T2a, 13(%56,5) hastanın T2c, 5 (%21,7) hastanın T3a, 1 (%4,3) hastanın T3b olarakgeldi. İki (%8,6) hastada postoperatifanastomoz kaçağı meydana gelmiş, 1 (%4,3) hastada ise vezikorektal fistülmeydana gelmiştir. On beş (%65,2) hastada postoperatif dönemde erektildisfonksiyon (ED) gelişmiştir. Beş (%21,7) hasta anastomoz darlığı nedeniyletekrar opere edilmiştir. Postoperatif 1. yılda 3 (%13) hastada biyokimyasalnüks saptanmıştır (prostat spesifik antijen (PSA) değeri >0,2 ng/ml).Sonuç: Onkolojik ve fonksiyonel sonuçlaraçısından bakıldığında açık retropubik radikal prostatektomi (RRP) velaparoskopik radikal prostatektomi (LRP) sonuçları benzerdir. Ancak LRP’deöğrenme eğrisi uzun olduğu için operasyon süresi ilk serilerde RRP’den dahauzundur. Öğrenme eğrisi tamamlandıktan sonra LRP postoperatif ağrı, kantransfüzyonu ihtiyacı, hastanede kalış süresi açısından RRP’ye göre dahaavantajlı bir cerrahi tekniktir.
KW  - Prostat Kanseri
KW  - Laparoskopi
KW  - Radikal Prostatektomi
N2  - Aim: The aim of the studyis to evaluate the characteristics and oncological and functional outcomes ofpatients operated with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy surgery at Our ClinicPatients and Method:23 radical prostatectomy cases performed entirely laparoscopically at OurClinic between 2008 and 2011 were reviewed retrospectively. Preoperativecharacteristics, perioperative and postoperative complications of the patientstheir treatments, and biochemical recurrence rates were evaluated.Results: Postoperativeprostatectomy pathologies of patients were 3 + 3 in 19 (82.6%) patients, 3 + 4in 3 (13%) patients and 4 + 3 in 1 (4.3%) patient. The surgical margin waspositive in 5 (21.7%) patients. According to TNM 2009 staging, the pathology of4 (17,3%) patients were T2a, 13 (56,5%) patients were T2c, 5 (21,7%) patientswere T3a, and 1 (4,3%) patient was T3b. Postoperative anastomosis leakageoccurred in 2 (8.6%) patients and vesicorectal fistula occurred in 1 (4.3%)patient. In 15 (65.2%) patients erectile dysfunction (ED) developedpostoperatively. 5 (21.7%) patients were re-operated due to anastomoticstricture. Biochemical recurrence was detected in 3 (13%) patients afterpostoperative 1 year (prostate specific antigen (PSA) value > 0.2ng/ml).Conclusion:The results of open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) and laparoscopicradical prostatectomy (LRP) are similar in terms of oncologic and functionaloutcomes. However, because of the learning curve in LRP is long, in the firstseries operation period is longer than RRP. After completing the learningcurve, LRP is a more advantageous surgical technique than RRP in terms ofpostoperative pain, needing for blood transfusion, and duration of hospital stay.
CR  - 1.	Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015; 136(5):E359-386.
CR  - 2.	Ilic D, Evans SM, Allan CA, Jung JH, Murphy D, Frydenberg M. Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2017; 9:Cd009625.
CR  - 3.	Rassweiler J, Sentker L, Seemann O, Hatzinger M, Rumpelt HJ. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique: an analysis of the first 180 cases. J Urol. 2001;166(6):2101-2108.
CR  - 4.	Salomon L, Rozet F, Soulie M: [Surgery of prostate cancer: Technical principles and perioperative complications]. Prog Urol. 2015; 25(15):966-998.
CR  - 5.	Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, Occhipinti S, Samaratunga H, Zajdlewicz L, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet. 2016; 388(10049):1057-1066.
CR  - 6.	Allan C, Ilic D. Laparoscopic versus Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for the Treatment of Localised Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. Urol Int. 2016; 96(4):373-378.
CR  - 7.	Coelho RF, Rocco B, Patel MB, Orvieto MA, Chauhan S, Ficarra V, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a critical review of outcomes reported by high-volume centers. J Endourol. 2010; 24(12):2003-2015.
CR  - 8.	Mason S, Van Hemelrijck M, Chandra A, Brown C, Cahill D. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy outcome data: how should surgeon's performance be reported? A retrospective learning curve analysis of two surgeons. Ecancermedicalscience. 2016; 10:651.
CR  - 9.	Tang KQ, Pang SY, Bao JM, Lei CY, Tan WL.Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional imaging systems in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University. 2017; 37(1):1-5.
CR  - 10.	Bove P, Iacovelli V, Celestino F, De Carlo F, Vespasiani G, Finazzi Agro E. 3D vs 2D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in organ-confined prostate cancer: comparison of operative data and pentafecta rates: a single cohort study. BMC Urol. 2015; 15:12.
CR  - 11.	Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A, Graefen M,  et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2009; 55(5):1037-1063.
CR  - 12.	Alessandro S, Alessandro G, Susanna C, Michele I, Francesca DQ, Andrea F, et al. Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy in high prostate volume cases: impact on oncological and functional results. Int Braz J Urol. 2016; 42(2):223-233.
CR  - 13.	Salonia A, Castagna G, Capogrosso P, Castiglione F, Briganti A, Montorsi F. Prevention and management of post prostatectomy erectile dysfunction. Transl Androl Urol. 2015; 4(4):421-437.
CR  - 14.	Ramsay C, Pickard R, Robertson C, Close A, Vale L, Armstrong N,  et al. Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England). 2012; 16(41):1-313.
CR  - 15.	Kishimoto N, Takao T, Yamamichi G, Okusa T, Taniguchi A, Tsutahara K, et al. Impact of prior abdominal surgery on the outcomes after robotic - assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: single center experience. Int Braz J Urol. 2016; 42(5):918-924.
UR  - https://doi.org/10.30565/medalanya.340737
L1  - http://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/383929
ER  -