Radical prostatectomy outcomes in renal transplant recipients: a retrospective case series of Thai patients
Autor: | Suthep Pacharatakul, Kun Sirisopana, Wachira Kochakarn, Pocharapong Jenjitranant, Kittinut Kijvikai, Wisoot Kongchareonsombat, Charoen Leenanupunth, Premsant Sangkum |
---|---|
Jazyk: | angličtina |
Rok vydání: | 2021 |
Předmět: |
Male
Biochemical recurrence medicine.medical_specialty Surgical margin Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy Urology medicine.medical_treatment Population 030232 urology & nephrology Renal transplant recipients 03 medical and health sciences Prostate cancer Postoperative Complications 0302 clinical medicine medicine Humans education Aged Retrospective Studies Prostatectomy education.field_of_study business.industry Prostatic Neoplasms General Medicine Perioperative Middle Aged Thailand medicine.disease Kidney Transplantation Radical prostatectomy Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology Surgery Treatment Outcome Reproductive Medicine 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis Laparoscopy Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery RC870-923 Complication business Research Article |
Zdroj: | BMC Urology, Vol 21, Iss 1, Pp 1-9 (2021) BMC Urology |
ISSN: | 1471-2490 |
Popis: | Background The incidence of prostate cancer in renal transplant recipients (RTR) is similar to the general population. Radical prostatectomy (RP) is the standard of care in the management of clinically localized cancer, but is considered complicated due to the presence of adhesions, and the location of transplanted ureter/kidney. To date, a few case series or studies on RP in RTR have been published, especially in Asian patients. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety and report the experience with RP on RTR. Methods We retrospectively reviewed data of 1270 patients who underwent RP from January 2008 to March 2020, of which 5 patients were RTR. All available baseline characteristics, perioperative and postoperative data (operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, length of hospital stay, complication), pathological stage, Gleason score, surgical margin status, and pre/postoperative creatinine were reviewed. Results Of the 5 RTR who underwent RPs (1 open radical prostatectomy (ORP), 1 laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), 2 robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies (RALRP), and 1 Retzius-sparing RALRP (RS-RALRP)) prostatectomy, the mean age (± SD) was 70 (± 5.62) years. In LRP and RALRP cases, the standard ports were moved slightly medially to prevent graft injury. The mean operative time ranged from 190 to 365 min. The longest operative time and highest EBL (630 ml) was the ORP case due to severe adhesion in Retzius space. For LRP and RALRP cases, the operative times seemed comparable and had EBL of ≤ 300 ml. All RPs were successful without any major intra-operative complication. There was no significant change in graft function. The restorations of urinary continence were within 1 month in RS-RALRP, approximately 6 months in RALRP, and about 1 year in ORP and LRP. Three patients with positive surgical margins had prostate-specific antigen (PSA) persistence at the first follow-up and 1 had later PSA recurrence. Two patients with negative margins were free from biochemical recurrence at 47 and 3 months after their RP. Conclusions Our series suggested that all RP techniques are safe and feasible mode of treatment for localized prostate cancer in RTR. |
Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
Externí odkaz: |