Urology
Volume 72, Issue 6 , Pages 1190-1193, December 2008

Single-Port Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy

Section of Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Received 6 March 2008; accepted 14 June 2008.

Objectives

To present the initial experience in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy performed exclusively through an umbilical incision using a single three-channel port and specially designed flexible laparoscopic instrumentation.

Methods

Since November 26, 2007, we have performed single-port laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in 4 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer. Patients with early-stage prostate cancer (T1c), no previous pelvic surgery, and a body mass index ≤35 kg/m2 were selected for single-port laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. A multichannel port was inserted transperitoneally through a 1.8-cm umbilical incision. No additional extraumbilical instruments or ports were inserted. Urethrovesical anastomosis was performed using free-hand interrupted suturing and extracorporeal knot tying. Data were collected prospectively into our institutional review board-approved data registry.

Results

All cases were completed successfully, without conversion to a standard laparoscopic approach. The total operative time was 285 ± 30 minutes, with a mean operative time for prostate excision and urethrovesical anastomosis of 3.25 hours and 1.1 hours, respectively. The mean blood loss was 288 ± 131 mL, and no patient required a blood transfusion. The hospital stay was 2.5 ± 0.6 days. The Foley catheter was removed 2 weeks (range 1-3) after surgery. No intraoperative complications occurred; however, 1 patient developed a rectourethral fistula that was noted 2 months after surgery. At 18 weeks of follow-up, 3 patients used 1 or 0 pads for continence daily, 2 patients had positive margins noted at the site of extracapsular extension, and all patients had an undetectable prostate-specific antigen level.

Conclusions

Single-port laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is feasible. Additional investigation is needed to evaluate the safety and oncologic adequacy of this new approach.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0090-4295(08)00744-9

doi:10.1016/j.urology.2008.06.010

Urology
Volume 72, Issue 6 , Pages 1190-1193, December 2008