Açık basit prostatektominin seksenliklerde güvenilirlik ve etkinliği: Tek merkez deneyimi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma ile 80 yaşından büyük hastalarda açık simple prostatektominin (ASP) güvenilirliğinin ve etkinliğinin araştırılması amaçladı. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Ocak 2012-Ocak 2018 tarihleri arasında merkezimizde ASP uygulanan hastalar bu çalışmanın hedef kitlesini oluşturmuştur. Hastalar, tüm kohort üç yaş grubuna bölünerek değerlendirilmiştir: 50-64, 65-79 ve ≥80. Çalışma grupları demografik özellikler, ameliyat öncesi klinik veriler, operasyonel parametreler, ameliyat sonrası birinci ay ve üçüncü ay üroflowmetrik veriler ve kısa dönem komplikasyon oranları açısından karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Ameliyat öncesi dirençli akut üriner retansiyon ve üretral kateterizasyon oranları, ≥80 yaş grubunda olanlarda diğer hasta gruplarına göre anlamlı derecede yüksekti. Gruplar intraoperatif tahmini kan kaybı, kan transfüzyonu, Clavien-Dindo Class≥3 komplikasyon oranları ve genel komplikasyon oranı açısından istatistiksel olarak benzerdi. Karşılaştırmalı analiz, kateterizasyon süresinin Grup 2 ve 3'te Grup 1'e göre anlamlı olarak daha uzun olduğunu gösterdi (p=<0,001). Hastanede kalış süresi de Grup 3’teki hastalarda Grup 1'deki hastalara göre anlamlı olarak daha yüksekti (p=0,003). Sonuç: ASP, ≥80 yaş grubunda olanlarda etkili ve güvenli bir cerrahi tedavi yöntemi olmasına rağmen, işleme bağlı morbidite ve mortalite oranlarını azaltmak için her hasta bireyselleştirilmiş bir yaklaşımla yönetilmelidir.

Keywords

• Benign prostat hiperplazisi
• Açık basit prostatektomi
• Seksenlikler

Safety and effectivity of open simple prostatectomy in octogenarians: A single center experience

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of open simple prostatectomy (OSP) in patients older than 80 (i.e., octogenarians). Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent OSP in our center between January 2012 and January 2018 constituted this study's target population. The patients were evaluated by dividing the entire cohort into three age groups: 50-64, 65-79, and ≥80. The study groups were compared regarding demographic features, preoperative clinical data, operative parameters, postoperative first-month and third-month uroflowmetric data, and short-term complication rates. Results: Preoperative persistent acute urinary retention and urethral catheterization rates were significantly higher in octogenarians than in the other patients. The groups were similar concerning intraoperative estimated blood loss, blood transfusion, Clavien-Dindo Class≥3 complication rates and the general complication rate statistically. The comparative analysis revealed that the duration of catheterization was significantly longer in Group 2 and 3 than Group 1 (p=<0.001). The length of hospital stay was also significantly higher in octogenarians than the patients in Group 1 (p=0.003). Conclusion: Although OSP is an effective and safe surgical treatment method in octogenarians, each patient should be managed by an individualized approach for lowering the procedure-related morbidity and mortality rates.

Keywords

• Benign prostatic hyperplasia
• Open simple prostatectomy
• Octogenarians

References

1. 1. McCullough TC, Heldwein FL, Soon SJ, et al. Laparoscopic versus open simple prostatectomy: An evaluation of morbidity. Journal of Endourology. 2009;23(1):129–33. doi:10.1089/end.2008.0401
2. 2. Kim JH, Park JY, Shim JS, et al. Comparison of outpatient versus inpatient transurethral prostate resection for benign prostatic hyperplasia: Comparative, prospective bi-centre study. Journal of the Canadian Urological Association. 2013;8:1–6. doi:10.5489/cuaj.1370
3. 3. Gratzke C, Bachmann A, Descazeaud A, et al. EAU guidelines on the assessment of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms including benign prostatic obstruction. 2022European Urology. 2015;67:1099–109. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.12.038 Gravas S, Cornu JN, Gacci M, et al. EAU guidelines on the assessment of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms including benign prostatic obstruction. 2022
4. 4. McVary KT, Roehrborn CG, Avins AL, et al. Update on AUA guideline on the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Journal of Urology. 2011;185:1793–803. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.01.074
5. 5. Suer E, Gokce I, Yaman O, et al. Open Prostatectomy Is Still a Valid Option for Large Prostates: A High-Volume, Single-Center Experience. Urology. 2008;72(1):90–4. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2008.03.015
6. 6. Varkarakis I, Kyriakakis Z, Delis A, et al. Long-term results of open transvesical prostatectomy from a contemporary series of patients. Urology. 2004;64(2):306–10. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2004.03.033
7. 7. Tubaro A, Carter S, Hind A, et al. A prospective study of the safety and efficacy of suprapubic transvesical prostatectomy in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Journal of Urology. 2001;166(1):172–6. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)66102-2
8. 8. Hoy NY, Zyl S Van, Martin BAS. Initial Canadian experience with robotic simple prostatectomy: Case series and literature review. Canadian Urological Association Journal. 2015;9:E626–30. doi:10.5489/cuaj.2750

9. 9. Banapour P, Patel N, Kane CJ, et al. Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy: A systematic review and report of a single institution case series. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases. 2014;17(1):1–5. doi:10.1038/pcan.2013.52
10. 10. Dal Moro F, Morlacco A, Motterle G, et al. Frailty and elderly in urology: Is there an impact on post-operative complications? Central European Journal of Urology. 2017;70(2):197–205. doi:10.5173/ceju.2017.1321
11. 11. Tubaro A, Montanari E. Management of symptomatic BPH in Italy: Who is treated and how? EuropeanUrology. 1999;36:28–32. doi:10.1159/000052346
12. 12. Serretta V, Morgia G, Fondacaro L, et al. Open prostatectomy for benign prostatic enlargement in southern Europe in the late 1990s: A contemporary series of 1800 interventions. Urology. 2002;60(4):623–7. doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(02)01860-5
13. 13. Freyer PJ. A new method of performing perineal prostatectomy. Br Med J. 1900;1(2047):698-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.1.2047.698-a.
14. 14. Burney TL, Badlani GH. Anesthetic considerations in the geriatric patient. Urologic Clinics of NorthAmerica. 1996;23(1):19–26. doi:10.1016/s0094-0143(05)70290-1
15. 15. Tonner PH, Kampen J, Scholz J. Pathophysiological changes in the elderly. Best Practice and Research: Clinical Anaesthesiology. 2003;17(2):163–77. doi:10.1016/s1521-6896(03)00010-7
16. 16. Priebe HJ. The aged cardiovascular risk patient. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2000;85(5):763–78. doi:10.1093/bja/85.5.763
17. 17. Sieber FE. Postoperative Delirium in the Elderly Surgical Patient. Anesthesiology Clinics. 2009;27(3):451–64. doi:10.1016/j.anclin.2009.07.009
18. 18. Pope D, Ramesh H, Gennari R, et al. Pre-operative assessment of cancer in the elderly (PACE): A comprehensive assessment of underlying characteristics of elderly cancer patients prior to elective surgery. Surgical Oncology. 2006;15(4):189–97. doi:10.1016/j.suronc.2007.04.009
19. 19. Lee DJ, Mallin K, Graves AJ, et al. Recent Changes in Prostate Cancer Screening Practices and Epidemiology. Journal of Urology. 2017;198(6):1230-1240. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2017.05.074
20. 20. Nadu A, Mabjeesh NJ, Ben-Chaim J, et al. Are indications for prostatectomy in octogenarians the same as for younger men? International Urology and Nephrology. 2003;36(1):47–50. doi:10.1023/b:urol.0000032683.36827.63
21. 21. Alivizatos G, Skolarikos A, Chalikopoulos D, et al. Transurethral Photoselective Vaporization versus Transvesical Open Enucleation for Prostatic Adenomas >80 ml: 12-mo Results of a Randomized Prospective Study. European Urology. 2008;54(2):427–37. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.11.044
22. 22. Kuntz RM, Lehrich K. Transurethral holmium laser enucleation versus transvesical open enucleation for prostate adenoma greater than 100 gm.: A randomized prospective trial of 120 patients. Journal of Urology. 2002;168:1465–9. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000027901.47718.fc
23. 23. Luttwak Z, Lask D, Abarbanel J, et al. Transvesical prostatectomy in elderly patients. Journal of Urology. 1997;157(6):2210–1. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(01)64720-7
24. 24. Gardner TA, Bissonette EA, Petroni GR, et al. Surgical postoperative factors affecting length of hospital stay after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2000;89(2):424–30. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(20000715)89:2<424::aid-cncr30>3.0.co;2-6
25. 25. Gormley EA, Griffiths DJ, McCracken PN, et al. Effect of transurethral resection of the prostate on detrusor instability and urge incontinence in elderly males. Neurourology and Urodynamics. 1993;12(5):445–53. doi:10.1002/nau.1930120502
26. 26. Kim SJ, Al Hussein Alawamlh O, Chughtai B, et al. Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Following Transurethral Resection of Prostate. Current Urology Reports. 2018;19(10):85. doi: 10.1007/s11934-021-01071-9
27. 27. Shah AA, Gahan JC, Sorokin I. Comparison of Robot-Assisted Versus Open Simple Prostatectomy for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Current Urology Reports. 2018;19(9):1–8. doi:10.1007/s11934-018-0820-1
28. 28. Cho JM, Moon KT, Lee JH, et al. Open simple prostatectomy and robotic simple prostatectomy for large benign prostatic hyperplasia: Comparison of safety and efficacy. Prostate International. 2021; 9(2):101-106. doi:10.1016/j.prnil.202.11.004
29. 29. Autorino R, Zargar H, Mariano MB, et al. Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic and Laparoscopic Simple Prostatectomy: A European-American Multi-institutional Analysis. European Urology. 2015; 68(1):86-94. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.044