medigraphic.com
Organo Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Urología

2022, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Urol 2022; 82 (4)

Evolution and optimization of laparoscopic urological procedures with new sutures and energy in Puebla

Arroyo-Kuribreña JC, Soto-Vega E

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page:
PDF size: 132.37 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To analyze the evolution of laparoscopic surgery and the influence of technical elements, such as the use of bipolar grasper and barbed suture in surgical success.
Methodology: A retrospective review of medical files and surgical videos of laparoscopic procedures of a single surgeon was done. Descriptive statistics was performed in search of differences in surgical time and bleeding.
Results: A total of 140 procedures were included, with 89.3% performed in private hospitals, mostly radical prostatectomy (42.8%), radical nephrectomy (33.5%), partial nephrectomy (5.7%), and others. The average surgical time was 130.2 minutes, with an average bleeding of 430cc, with only 4 severe complications (2.1%), and a low mortality rate of 0.7%. The conversion rate to open surgery was 1.4%. The hospital stay was in average 2.4 days. The implementation of bipolar grasper and barbed sutures diminished the surgical time and bleeding.
Study limitations: Because this is a single surgeon’s experience in time, with diverse surgical procedures, a multicentric comparative study should be undertaken to confirm the results.
Originality: In Mexico, there are no studies that evaluate the use of technology in laparoscopic urologic surgery.
Conclusions: This paper reports on the evolution of the surgeon’s technique and experience, which have enabled an optimization in surgical times and postoperative outcomes associated to the use of the technology for dissection and the use of barbed sutures to improve results.


REFERENCES

  1. Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR, Soper NJ,Dierks SM, Merety KS, Darcy MD, et al.Laparoscopic nephrectomy. N Engl J Med.1991;324(19):1370–1. doi: https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199105093241917

  2. Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, ClaymanRV, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic radicalprostatectomy: initial short-term experience.Urology. 1997;50(6):854–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(97)00543-8

  3. Raboy A, Ferzli G, Albert P. Initialexperience with extraperitoneal endoscopicradical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology.1997;50(6):849–53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(97)00485-8

  4. Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, BarretE, Rozet F, Vallancien G. Laparoscopicradical prostatectomy: technical and earlyoncological assessment of 40 operations. EurUrol. 1999;36(1):14–20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000019921

  5. Binder J, Kramer W. Robotically-assistedlaparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJUInt. 2001;87(4):408–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.00115.x

  6. Lin Y-F, Lai S-K, Liu Q-Y, Liao B-H, Huang J,Du L, et al. Efficacy and safety of barbed suturein minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: Asystematic review and meta-analysis. KaohsiungJ Med Sci. 2017;33(3):107–15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2016.12.005

  7. Soto-Vega E, Torres-Perez JR, Arroyo C. Useof the radiofrequency Caiman® Aesculap®Grasper in three different laparoscopic urologicprocedures with video. Trends Med. 2018;18(3).

  8. Okhunov Z, Yoon R, Lusch A, SpradlingK, Suarez M, Kaler KS, et al. Evaluationand Comparison of Contemporary Energy-Based Surgical Vessel Sealing Devices. JEndourol. 2018;32(4):329–37. doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0596

  9. Arroyo C, Dib JE. Primer curso teórico-práctico“Dr. Jorge Elías Dib” de laparoscopia en urología.Rev Mex Urol. 2005;65(6):480–1.

  10. Linden-Castro E, Pelayo-Nieto M, Ramírez-Galindo I, Guzmán-Hernández F, Catalán-Quinto G, Rodríguez-Covarrubias F, etal. Entrenamiento de urología en México:Perspectiva del residente. Gac Med Mex. 2016;152:339–44.

  11. Arroyo C. Prostatectomía radical laparoscópicaextraperitoneal con plastia inguinal. Descripciónde la técnica. Revista Mexicana de Urología.2007;67(2):102–7.

  12. Rodríguez-Covarrubias F, Martínez LiévanoL, Gabilondo Pliego B, Gabilondo NavarroF, Atisha-Fregoso Y, Arroyo C. Simuladorcomputarizado de inmersión virtual comomodelo de inicio de entrenamiento delaparoscopia urológica. Actas UrológicasEspañolas. 2006;30(8):819–23.

  13. Akita H, Okamura T, Naiki T, Nagata D, TozawaK, Kohri K. Evaluation of the Outcome ofLaparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy by a SingleSurgeon: Experience with an Initial 30 Cases.Journal of Rural Medicine. 2010;5(1):134–9.doi: https://doi.org/10.2185/jrm.5.134

  14. Gregori A, Simonato A, Lissiani A, BozzolaA, Galli S, Gaboardi F. Laparoscopic radicalprostatectomy: perioperative complicationsin an initial and consecutive series of 80cases. Eur Urol. 2003;44(2):190–4; discussion194. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0302-2838(03)00261-6

  15. Guillonneau B, Rozet F, CathelineauX, Lay F, Barret E, Doublet J-D, et al.Perioperative complications of laparoscopicradical prostatectomy: the Montsouris 3-yearexperience. J Urol. 2002 Jan;167(1):51–6.

  16. Eden CG, Cahill D, Vass JA, Adams TH, DaulehMI. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: theinitial UK series. BJU Int. 2002;90(9):876–82. doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.2002.03049.x

  17. Rassweiler J, Sentker L, Seemann O,Hatzinger M, Rumpelt HJ. Laparoscopic radicalprostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique:an analysis of the first 180 cases. J Urol.2001;166(6):2101–8.

  18. Akdere H, Aktoz T, Arıkan MG, Atakan İH,Veneziano D, Gözen AS. Embarking withlaparoscopic radical prostatectomy and dealingwith the complications and collateral problems:A single-center experience. Turkish Journal ofUrology. 2020;46(1):37.

  19. Dirie NI, Wang Q, Wang S. Two-DimensionalVersus Three-Dimensional LaparoscopicSystems in Urology: A Systematic Review andMeta-Analysis. J Endourol. 2018;32(9):781–90.doi: 10.1089/end.2018.0411

  20. Bertolo R, Checcucci E, Amparore D, AutorinoR, Breda A, Ramirez-Backhaus M,et al. Current Status of Three-DimensionalLaparoscopy in Urology: An ESUT SystematicReview and Cumulative Analysis. J Endourol.2018;32(11):1021–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0374




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com