Kh.T. UMURZAKOV ¹, D.R. KAIDAROVA ¹, A.E. NURZHANOVA ², D.N. SAIDUALIEV ², A.B. KHAITMAT ³, S.O. SAGIDULLIN ³, G.M. SHALGUMBAYEVA ²

1. “Kazakh Institute of Oncology and Radiology” JSC, Almaty, the Republic of Kazakhstan;
2. “Semey Medical University” NCJSC, Semey, the Republic of Kazakhstan;
3. East Kazakhstan Regional Multi-Profile “Center of Oncology and surgery,” Oskemen, the Republic of Kazakhstan

DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.52532/2663-4864-2023-1-67-36-39

UDC: 616.65-006.6-08

Year: 2023 issure: 67 number: 1 pages: 36-39

Download PDF:

ABSTRACT

Relevance: Laparoscopic surgery supplies many benefits due to lower postoperative sequelae. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy has become a first-line treatment for patients with localized prostate cancer worldwide.
The study aimed to compare outcomes after traditional laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy with modified laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (MLERPE).
Methods: All information about patient treatment for this historical cohort study was obtained from the “Electronic In-patient Registry” of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The study included case records of 94 patients who underwent laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy from 2017 to 2021. Of them, 45 underwent a modified laparoscopic prostatectomy, and 49 – a traditional laparoscopic prostatectomy. Data are presented as the means ± standard deviation or as frequencies and percentages. Pearson’s Chi-square was used for qualitative data. T-test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare the means of the two groups. The statistical significance level was 0.05.
Results: We revealed significant differences between the laboratory parameters of both groups after surgery. The mean difference in hemoglobin level between the two groups was 14.04, the mean difference in erythrocyte level was 0.69, the mean difference in leukocyte level was 1.26, and the mean difference in ESR level was 2.01. All differences were statistically significant (p=0.000). We found a statistical difference in the duration of operation and hospital stay between the two groups (p=0.000).
Conclusion: The modified laparoscopic technique avoids adverse worse outcomes such as bleeding, pneumoperitoneum, and decreasing oxygen saturation. This technique is also beneficial in the early postoperative period for excluding peritonitis, and the late postoperative period avoids adhesive processes.
Keywords: Prostate gland tumors, prostate cancer, laparoscopic surgery, extraperitoneal prostatectomy, clinical outcome, Kazakhstan.

References:
1. Basiri A., de la Rosette J.J., Tabatabaei S., Woo H.H., Laguna M.P., Shemshaki H. Comparison of retropubic, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: who is the winner? // World J. Urol. – 2018. – Vol. 36 (4). – P. 609-621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2174-1
2. Mohammadi M., Shakiba B., Shirani M. Comparison of two methods of laparoscopic trocar insertion (Hasson and Visiport) in speed and complication in urologic surgery // BioMed. – 2018. – Vol. 8 (4). – P. 5-9. https://doi.org/10.1051/bmdcn/2018080422
3. Pompe R.S., Beyer B., Haese A., Preisser F., Michl U., Steuber T., Graefen M., Huland H., Karakiewicz P.I., Tilki D. Postoperative complications of contemporary open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using standardised reporting systems // BJU int. – 2018. – Vol. 122 (5). – P. 801-807. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14369
4. Lin C., Wan F., Lu Y., Li G., Yu L., Wang M. Enhanced recovery after surgery protocol for prostate cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy // J. Int. Med. Res. – 2019. – Vol. 47 (1). – P. 114-121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060518796758
5. Sayyid R.K, Sherwood D., Simpson W.G., Terris M.K., Klaassen Z., Madi R. Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a safe surgical technique with superior continence outcomes // J. Endourol. – 2017. – Vol. 31 (12). – P. 1244-1250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01096-1
6. Brassetti A., Bollens R. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in 2018: 20 years of worldwide experiences, experimentations, researches and refinements // Minerva Chirurgica. – 2018. – Vol. 74 (1). – P. 37-53. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4733.18.07740-4
7. Nyarangi-Dix J.N., Görtz M., Gradinarov G., Hofer L., Schütz V., Gasch C., Radtke J.P., Hohenfellner M. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: functional and early oncologic results in aggressive and locally advanced prostate cancer // BMC Urol. – 2019. – Vol. 19 (1). – P. 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-019-0550-9
8. Lantz A., Bock D., Akre O., Angenete E., Bjartell A., Carlsson S., Modig K.K., Nyberg M., Kollberg K.S., Steineck G., Stranne J., Wiklund P., Haglind E. Functional and oncological outcomes after open versus robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer: 8-year follow-up // Eur. Urol. – 2021. – Vol. 80 (5). – P. 650-660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2021.07.025
9. Jiang Y.L., Zheng G.F., Jiang Z.P., Zhen-Li, Zhou X.L., Zhou J., Ye C.H., Wang K.E. Comparison of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy vs standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis // BMC Urol. – 2020. – Vol. 20 (1). – P. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-020-00685-4
10. Umurzakov Kh., Kaidarova D., Shalgumbayeva G., Khaitmat A., Sagidullin S., Ibraev A. Preparation of the surgical place for the laparoscopic procedure of the prostate gland tumors // J. Clin. Med. Kazakhstan. – 2022. – Vol. 19(6). – P. 79-82. https://doi.org/10.23950/jcmk/12718
11. Перепечай В.А., Васильев О.Н. Лапароскопическая радикальная простатэктомия // Вестник урологии. – 2018. – Т. 6, №3. – С. 57-72 [Perepechai V.A., Vasilyev O.N. Laporoskopicheskaya radicalnaya prostatektomiya // Vestnik urologii. – 2018. – T. 6, №3. – S. 57-72 (in Russ).]. https://doi.org/10.21886/2308-6424-2018-6-3-57-72