Document Detail

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a patient with a preexisting three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis.
Jump to Full Text
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  20414415     Owner:  NLM     Status:  PubMed-not-MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
We report a rare case of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) in a patient with a preexisting penile prosthesis. In this case, we completed RARP without removing the reservoir by using a deflation-inflation technique, and there were no complications related to the prosthesis. The patient had a negative surgical margin. The preserved three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis continued to function properly in 1 month. Reservoir-preserving RARP is technically feasible and safe. However, it is important to be aware of device-related complications. Long-term studies on the mechanical survival rate and patient satisfaction should be also performed.
Authors:
Kyung Hwa Choi; Seung Hwan Lee; Won Sug Jung; Byung Ha Chung
Related Documents :
1719685 - Urodynamic assessment and quantification of prostatic obstruction before and after tran...
12172235 - Power-assisted partial adenoidectomy.
20201685 - Robot-assisted laparoscopic extended right hepatectomy with biliary reconstruction.
16754625 - Robotics and telesurgery--an update on their position in laparoscopic radical prostatec...
11802575 - The central oval of the face: tridimensional endoscopic rejuvenation.
22065035 - Thoracic endovascular aortic repair: a local single institution experience.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article     Date:  2010-01-21
Journal Detail:
Title:  Korean journal of urology     Volume:  51     ISSN:  2005-6745     ISO Abbreviation:  Korean J Urol     Publication Date:  2010 Jan 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2010-04-23     Completed Date:  2011-07-14     Revised Date:  2013-05-29    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  101499376     Medline TA:  Korean J Urol     Country:  Korea (South)    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  70-2     Citation Subset:  -    
Affiliation:
Department of Urology, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Comments/Corrections

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Full Text
Journal Information
Journal ID (nlm-ta): Korean J Urol
Journal ID (publisher-id): KJU
ISSN: 2005-6737
ISSN: 2005-6745
Publisher: The Korean Urological Association
Article Information
Copyright ? The Korean Urological Association, 2010
open-access:
Received Day: 27 Month: 8 Year: 2009
Accepted Day: 14 Month: 10 Year: 2009
Print publication date: Month: 1 Year: 2010
Electronic publication date: Day: 21 Month: 1 Year: 2010
Volume: 51 Issue: 1
First Page: 70 Last Page: 72
PubMed Id: 20414415
DOI: 10.4111/kju.2010.51.1.70

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy in a Patient with a Preexisting Three-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis
Kyung Hwa ChoiA1
Seung Hwan LeeA1
Won Sug Jung1
Byung Ha ChungA1
Department of Urology, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
1National Health Insurance Corporation Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea.
Correspondence: Corresponding Author: Byung Ha Chung. Department of Urology, Yonsei University Health System, Gangnam Severance Hospital, 712, Eonju-ro, Dogok-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 135-720, Korea. TEL: +82-2-2019-3474, FAX: +82-2-3462-8887, chung646@yuhs.ac

Prostate cancer has been reported to occur most frequently in men over 40 years of age. In organ-confined cases, radical prostatectomy is the treatment of choice. After the introduction of the da Vinci? surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, USA), robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) has become a mainstay of treatment for prostate cancer in Korea [1]. In similar age groups, men also tend to experience sexual dysfunction, including erectile dysfunction (ED). In patients with ED, surgical treatments like penile prosthesis implantation are considered when behavior therapy and medications are not effective. For these reasons, prostate cancer patients who have undergone penile prosthesis implantation could be candidates for RARP. The three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) comprises three components: a balloon-like reservoir, a flow-regulating pump, and a pair of cylinders. The reservoir can be injured during prostatectomy and can also hinder RARP because it is placed in the perivesical space. However, few RARP cases involving patients with a preexisting three-piece IPP have been reported, and similar situations are likely to occur more frequently as the number of operations increases. Therefore, we report our experience with RARP in a patient with a three-piece IPP that had been implanted in a previous surgery.


CASE REPORT
1. Patient

The patient was a 64-year-old male diagnosed with acinar-type prostate adenocarcinoma with a Gleason score of 6 (3+3) by prostate biopsy. His prostate volume was 25 g, and his prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 2.34 ng/ml. The patient had undergone a three-piece IPP (AMS-700CX, American Medical Systems, USA) implantation 15 years previously because of diabetic erectile dysfunction. The 60 ml reservoir was placed in the left retropubic space through an external inguinal ring from a penoscrotal vertical incision. All devices worked well. Because we perform magnetic resonance imaging in all prostate cancer patients preoperatively (Fig. 1), the surgeon who performed this case was fully aware of the anatomical structure of the patient before surgery. The patient was informed in advance of the risks of malfunction, infection, and the possibility of IPP removal.

2. Surgical procedure

The RARP was done in the usual manner [2]. Initially, all six ports were placed after the pneumoperitoneum was established with a Veress needle. A 12 mm Visiport was placed at the umbilicus for the camera. The 8 mm ports for the robotic arms were placed laterally below the level of the umbilicus. In addition, a 12 mm assistant port was inserted between the camera port and the outer robot port and the suction cannula was put through a 5 mm port between the camera and robotic port ipsilateral to the assistant's side. In this case, the inflated reservoir was easily found in the lateral pelvic wall. We carefully dissected the encapsulated reservoir by electrocautery (monopolar curved scissor) so as not to injure it. After separating the reservoir capsule, deflation was performed on the pelvic wall to empty the reservoir, creating more prevesical space. There were no adhesions in the pelvic cavities (Fig. 2). Then, RARP was successfully performed [2]. After finishing the urethrovesical anastomosis with an 18Fr silicone Foley catheter and placing a drain, we inflated the reservoir (Fig. 3).

3. Surgical results

The operating time was 120 min, and the estimated blood loss during the surgery was 320 ml. There was no damage to the adjacent organs. The encapsulated reservoir was well inflated and was easily separated from the surrounding tissues. Reservoir change was not suspected. Pathologic examination revealed acinar type adenocarcinoma and the Gleason score was 6 (3+3). The tumor volume was 1.50 cc, and the surgical margin was negative. The length of hospital stay was 9 days. The drain was removed on day 4, and the urethral catheter was removed on day 9. The preserved IPP continued to function properly in 1 month. No other complications were reported. The 6-month follow-up PSA level was <0.01 ng/ml and the patient achieved pad-free status.


DISCUSSION

There have been some reports previously about prostatectomy performed on patients with a preexisting IPP, but not many [3-5]. Davis et al reported a case with infectious complications related to the IPP [3]. The deflation-inflation technique adopted for our patient was a technically smooth and feasible approach and there were neither complications nor mechanical malfunctions. This technique can be easily performed by a bedside assistant surgeon. Moreover, the procedure did not affect oncologic outcome and demonstrated the benefits of not having to undergo an additional operation. We considered the view of the operation field to be the most important factor during surgery. If deflation and retraction to the pelvic wall are incomplete, the reservoir has to be removed. Because the reservoir was located in the operation field, ipsilateral robotic arm movement is limited, which could make it difficult to perform RARP. There was also a risk of injuring the reservoir by the robotic arm. Actually, one of our prostate cancer patients requested the removal of the reservoir before RARP because he feared intraoperative and postoperative complications. In the present case, however, the patient underwent the RARP without removal of the reservoir. Previous studies did not report any perioperative complications, especially in robotic cases [5]. However, prosthesis-related infection and malfunction should be considered when performing this surgery [3,4,6,7]. Careful dissection around the peri-reservoir tissue and preservation of the pseudocapsules are the keys in this procedure. Infection can occur once the reservoir and connector tubes are contaminated by urine or irrigation fluid [2,8]. To prevent tearing of the pseudocapsule, we used a monopolar cutting current to dissect the encapsulated tissues and avoided directly grasping the reservoir [5]. When the implant was exposed, primary closure of the pseudocapsule and an above-average dose of long-term intravenous antibiotics were needed. When deflation and dissection were performed, the reservoir became fully mobile. During the healing period, the reservoir can become dislocated from its original place. Munoz et al reported a case with an intravesical reservoir that caused the initial symptoms accompanied by an IPP implantation, such as urinary tract infection and incontinence [9]. Leach et al also discussed a case in which the reservoir eroded into the bowel and bladder [10]. Sometimes, a dislocated reservoir can compress the ureter and cause hydronephrosis. For these reasons, we should keep in mind the complications that follow reservoir shifting if a patient complains of atypical urinary symptoms, hydronephrosis, or changes in bowel habits postoperatively. To fix the reservoir in the intended place, the urethral catheter should be removed as soon as possible because a distended bladder can help to push the movable reservoir superiorly and laterally [7]. Mireku-Boateng et al reported that they usually remove the urethral catheter at a mean time of postoperative day 12 [7]. In our case, the urethral catheter was removed earlier (on day 9) than in other studies. In our case, IPP had been performed through a penoscrotal incision so that we could avoid surrounding tissue adhesion and reservoir fixation. In our experience, organ-confined prostate cancer patients with a history of IPP implantation through penoscrotal incisions may be good candidates for reservoir-saving RARP. After performing the deflation-inflation technique for the RARP patient with a preexisting penile prosthetic reservoir, it appeared that this technique was feasible, safe, and cost-effective. However, it is important to be aware of device-related complications. Long-term studies on the mechanical survival rate and patient satisfaction should be also performed.


References
1. Park SY,Ham WS,Choi YD,Rha KH. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: clinical experience of 200 casesKorean J UrolYear: 200849215220
2. Menon M,Hemal AK. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy: experience in more than 1000 casesJ EndourolYear: 20041861161915597646
3. Davis BE,DeBrock BJ,Lierz MF,Weigel JW. Management of preexisting inflatable penile prosthesis during radical retropubic prostatectomyJ UrolYear: 1992148119812001404636
4. Dunsmuir WD,Kirby RS. Conservation of inflatable penile prosthesis during radical retropubic prostatectomyBr J UrolYear: 1997792832849052485
5. Rehman J,Guru K,Chughtai B,Shabsigh R,Samadi D. Robotic radical prostatectomy in patients with preexisting inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP)Can J UrolYear: 2008154263426518814816
6. Tiguert R,Hurley PM,Gheiler EL,Tefilli MV,Gudziak MR,Dhabuwala CB,et al. Treatment outcome after radical prostatectomy is not adversely affected by a pre-existing penile prosthesisUrologyYear: 199852103010339836550
7. Mireku-Boateng AO,Oben F. Surgical outcome of radical retropubic prostatectomy is not adversely affected by preexisting three-piece inflatable penile implantUrol IntYear: 20057422122315812207
8. Yang KM,Choi HK. Analysis of survival rate and cause of revision in penile prosthesis: a single center long term follow-up studyKorean J UrolYear: 20054611861191
9. Munoz JJ,Ellsworth PI. The retained penile prosthesis reservoir: a riskUrologyYear: 20005594910840118
10. Leach GE,Shapiro CE,Hadley R,Raz S. Erosion of inflatable penile prosthesis reservoir into bladder and bowelJ UrolYear: 1984131117711786726925

Article Categories:
  • Case Report

Keywords: Robotics, Prostatectomy, Penile prosthesis, Prostatic neoplasms.

Previous Document:  Urodynamic Effects of Propiverine on Detrusor Overactivity and Abdominal Straining during Voiding in...
Next Document:  Ureteroscopic surgery for a large upper ureteral stone in an infant with bilateral vesicoureteral re...