Negative Outcomes of Radical Prostatecomy in Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer: There Are a Genitourinary Group of Postoperative Complications in the Focus
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
The objective: to research the frequency and structure of the complications of the genitourinary group in patients with localized prostate cancer (PC) who were undergone retropubic and endoscopic radical prostatectomy in one clinic.
Material and methods. The study included 360 patients, who had been undergone radical prostatectomy (RPE) during 2012–2016 in the clinic of the SI «Institute of Urology of NAMS Ukraine». Group 1 included 99 (27,5%) patients after retropubic radical prostatectomy (RPE), and group 2 – 261 (72,5%) patients after endoscopic radical prostatectomy (ERP).
Results. Genitourinary complications were detected in 30 (30,3%) patients in group 1 and in 81 (31,03%) patients in group 2 (p=0,849), and the most frequent of them were leakage of vesico-urethral anastomosis (VUA): at 12 (12,12%) of patients in group 1 and 35 (13,41%) in group 2 (p=0,746). In groups 1 and 2, there were 22 (22,22%) and 62 (23,76%) cases of genitourinary complications complied with the I–II degrees classification of Clavien-Dindo, while 8 (8,08%) and 19 (7,28%) of complications were releted to degrees III–IV respectively. Genitourinary complications of the V degree were not detected in any of the patient groups.
Conclusions. The RRP and ERP series show a comparable total number of complications of the genitourinary group with the background of the consistency of the frequency of the occurrence of its components. The recorded genitourinary complications in most cases were according to the I–II degrees of Clavien-Dindo classification. For a more complete description of the negative outcomes of the RPE, further study of other groups of postoperative complications and negative sequelae, is needed.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright and grant the journal the first publication of original scientific articles under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which allows others to distribute work with acknowledgment of authorship and first publication in this journal.
References
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
Montorsi F, Wilson TG, Rosen RC, Ahlering TE, Artibani W, Carroll PR, et al. Best practices in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: recommendations of the Pasadena Consensus Panel. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):368–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.057
Mitropoulos D, Artibani W, Biyani CS, Bjerggaard Jensen J, Rouprêt M, Truss M. Validation of the Clavien–Dindo grading system in urology by the European Association of Urology Guidelines Ad Hoc Panel. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4(4):608–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.02.014
Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM. Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery. 1992;111(5):518–526.
Strasberg SM, Linehan DC, Hawkins WG. The accordion severity grading system of surgical complications. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):177–186. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181afde41
Mitropoulos D, Artibani W, Graefen M, Remzi M, Rouprêt M, Truss M. Reporting and grading of complications after urologic surgical procedures: an ad hoc EAU guidelines panel assessment and recommendations. Eur Urol. 2012;61(2):341–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.10.033
Sotelo R, Arriaga J, Aron M. Complications in robotic urologic surgery. Cham: Springer international publishing; 2018. 349 с. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62277-4
Novara G, Ficarra V, D’Elia C, Secco S, Cavalleri S, Artibani W. Prospective evaluation with standardised criteria for postoperative complications after robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2010;57(3):363–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.11.032
Возіанов СО, Шамраєв СМ, Леоненко АМ. Порівняльний аналіз результатів позадулонної та малоінвазивної радикальної простатектоміії. Здоровье мужчины. 2017;61(2):29–36. https://doi.org/10.30841/2307-5090.2(61).2017.115986
Возіанов СО, Шамраєв СМ, Леоненко АМ. Вплив накопичення досвіду виконання ендоскопічної радикальної простатектомії на її результати у хворих локалізованим раком передміхурової залози в умовах ДУ «Інститут урології НАМН України» протягом п’ятирічного періоду. Здоровье мужчины. 2018;65(2):45–58. https://doi.org/10.30841/2307-5090.2.2018.148653
Gross JL, Masterson TA, Cheng L, Johnstone PA. pT0 prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. J Surg Oncol. 2010;102(4):331–333. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.21647
Schirrmacher S, Kallidonis P, Horn L-C, Nenning H, Rassler J, Rai B, et al. Stage pT0 after radical prostatectomy: a diagnostic dilemma. World J Urol. 2015;33(9):1291–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1441-z
Унгуряну ТН, Гржибовский АМ. Краткие рекомендации по описанию, статистическому анализу и представлению данных в научных публикациях. Экология Человека. 2011;(5):55–60.
Mazzucchelli R, Barbisan F, Tagliabracci A, Lopez-Beltran A, Cheng L, Scarpelli M, et al. Search for residual prostate cancer on pT0 radical prostatectomy after positive biopsy. Virchows Arch. 2007;450(4):371–378. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00428-007-0367-x
