Single plus one port robotic radical prostatectomy (SPORP); Initial experience


Submitted: June 3, 2017
Accepted: July 2, 2017
Published: October 3, 2017
Abstract Views: 1371
PDF: 849
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

  • Volkan Tugcu Department of Urology, Bakirkoy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
  • Abdulmuttalip Simsek Department of Urology, Bakirkoy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
  • Ismail Evren Department of Urology, Bakirkoy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
  • Kamil Gokhan Seker Department of Urology, Bakirkoy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
  • Ramazan Kocakaya Department of Urology, Bakirkoy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
  • Bugra Dogukan Torer Department of Urology, Bakirkoy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
  • Arda Atar Department of Urology, Bakirkoy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
  • Ali Ihsan Tasci Department of Urology, Bakirkoy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Objective: This article reports on patients with early stage prostate cancer treated with single plus one port robotic radical prostatectomy (SPORP). Materials and methods: Since January 2014, we performed SPORP in 8 patients with localized prostate cancer. Age of patients, clinical stage, operation time, intraoperative and postoperative complications, blood loss, histopathological evaluation, postoperative continence, serum level of PSA were evaluated. Results: Mean age of the 8 patients was 59.85 years. All operations were completed without conversion to standard robotic procedure or open surgery. No intra operative complications occurred. Mean operating time was 143 minutes; prostate excision 123 minutes and urethrovesical anastomosis 20 minutes. Mean blood loss was 45 ml. Preoperative Gleason scores were (3 + 4) in one patient and (3 + 3) in 7 patients. Postoperative Gleason scores were (3 + 4) in 2 patients, and (3 + 3) in 6 patients. All these 8 cases were in T1c clinical stage. Early postoperative complications were drain leakage (n = 1), atelectasis (n = 1), wound infection (n = 1) and fever (n = 1). There was no positive surgical margin. The serum level of PSA was less than 0.2 ng/ml and no other complications happened during the 4 to 12 months follow-up period. Postoperative continence and cosmetic results were excellent. Conclusions: It is relatively easy for urologists who are skilled in traditional laparoscopic and robotic surgeries to master SPORP. However long-term outcomes of this surgery need further investigations.

Tugcu, V., Simsek, A., Evren, I., Seker, K. G., Kocakaya, R., Torer, B. D., Atar, A., & Tasci, A. I. (2017). Single plus one port robotic radical prostatectomy (SPORP); Initial experience. Archivio Italiano Di Urologia E Andrologia, 89(3), 178–181. https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2017.3.178

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations