Robotic perineal radical prostatectomy in a patient with a pre-existing three piece inflatable penile prosthesis

Abstract

Radical prostatectomy (RP) is the primary and standard treatment for localized prostate cancer. As in many surgical procedures, RP can now be accomplished through minimally invasive methods. RP in a patient with a pre-existing 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is an exceptional condition and involves coping with many difficulties. In this case report, we aimed to present a patient with pre-existing 3-piece IPP for whom we successfully performed robotic perineal RP (r-PRP).

Zusammenfassung

Die radikale Prostatektomie (RP) ist die primäre Standardbehandlung für lokal begrenzten Prostatakrebs. Wie viele chirurgische Eingriffe auch, kann die RP derzeit mit minimalinvasiven Methoden ausgeführt werden. Eine RP bei Patienten mit präexistierenden dreiteiligen aufblasbaren Penisprothesen (IPP) ist eine außergewöhnliche Gegebenheit, für die viele Schwierigkeiten überwunden werden müssen. Ziel dieses Fallberichts ist es, einen Patienten mit einer präexistenten dreiteiligen IPP vorzustellen, bei dem wir eine robotergestützte perineale RP (r-PRP) erfolgreich durchgeführt haben.

Keywords

robotic surgery - radical prostatectomy - perineal approach - three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis

Schlüsselwörter

Roboterchirurgie - radikale Prostatektomie - perinealer Zugang - dreiteilige aufblasbare Penisprothese

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
28. Januar 2020

• References

• 1 Kaouk JH, Akca O, Zargar H. et al. Descriptive Technique and Initial Results for Robotic Radical Perineal Prostatectomy. Urology 2016; 94: 129-138
• 2 Tuğcu V, Akça O, Şimşek A. et al. Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: first experience of 15 cases. Turk J Urol 2017; 43: 476-483
• 3 Schanne FJ, Carpiniello V, Chaikin D. Radical prostatectomy in patients with indwelling inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology 1998; 52: 715-716
• 4 Davis BE, DeBrock BJ, Lierz MF. et al. Management of preexisting inflatable penile prosthesis during radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 1992; 148: 1198-1200
• 5 Dunsmuir WD, Kirby RS. Conservation of inflatable penile prosthesis during radical retropubic prostatectomy. Br J Urol 1997; 79: 283-284
• 6 Tiguert R, Hurley PM, Gheiler EL. et al. Treatment outcome after radical prostatectomy is not adversely affected by a pre-existing penile prosthesis. Urology 1998; 52: 1030-1033
• 7 Rehman J, Guru K, Chughtai B. et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy in patients with preexisting inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). Can J Urol 2008; 15: 4263-4265
• 8 Choi KH, Lee SH, Jung WS. et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a patient with a preexisting three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis. Korean J Urol 2010; 51: 70-72
• 9 Erdeljan P, Brock G, Pautler SE. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in patients with preexisting three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis. J Sex Med 2011; 8: 306-309
• 10 Mireku-Boateng AO, Oben F. Surgical outcome of radical retropubic prostatectomy is not adversely affected by preexisting three-piece inflatable penile implant. Urol Int 2005; 74: 221-223
• 11 Keller H, Lehmann J, Beier J. Radical perineal prostatectomy and simultaneous extended pelvic lymph node dissection via the same incision. Eur Urol 2007; 52: 384-388
• 12 Tuğcu V, Akça O, Şimşek A. et al. Robotic perineal radical prostatectomy and robotic pelvic lymph node dissection via a perineal approach: The Tugcu Bakirkoy Technique. Turk J Urol 2018; 44: 114-118
• 13 Grimm MO, Thomas C, Fröhner M. et al. Pelvic lymphadenectomy and radical prostatectomy. Recommendations of the German S3 guideline. Urologe A 2010; 49: 206-210
• 14 EAU – EANM – ESTRO – ESUR – SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. 2019 https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/#1
• 15 Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F. et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 480-487