Laparoscopic vs open transcapsular adenomectomy (Millin): a comparative study of perioperative outcomes and complications.

IF 1.4 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Central European Journal of Urology Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-15 DOI:10.5173/ceju.2023.223
Gonçalo Mendes, Alexandra Rocha, Bernardo Lobão Teixeira, Mariana Madanelo, Sofia Mesquita, Miguel Monteiro, Avelino Fraga, Diogo Nunes-Carneiro, João Cabral, Frederico Teves
{"title":"Laparoscopic vs open transcapsular adenomectomy (Millin): a comparative study of perioperative outcomes and complications.","authors":"Gonçalo Mendes, Alexandra Rocha, Bernardo Lobão Teixeira, Mariana Madanelo, Sofia Mesquita, Miguel Monteiro, Avelino Fraga, Diogo Nunes-Carneiro, João Cabral, Frederico Teves","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2023.223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Laparoscopic adenomectomy for prostates larger than 80 mL is still a topic of debate. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the perioperative outcomes and complications between open Millin (OM) and laparoscopic Millin (LM) adenomectomy.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Perioperative data and complications were retrospectively collected from patients submitted to Millin procedure from August 2019 to August 2022 in a tertiary centre, and OM and LM were compared. Complications were classified according to Clavien-Dindo classification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 205 patients were identified, 125 in the OM group and 80 in the LM group. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Mean total blood loss (194 ±210 vs 477 ±389 mL, p <0.001), mean haemoglobin drop (1.40 ±1.16 vs 2.62 ±1.42 g/dL, p <0.001), duration of catheterisation (4.63 ±1.39 vs 5.37 ±1.99 days, p = 0.004), and hospital stay (4.59 ±1.72 vs 5.82 ±3.36 days, p = 0.003) were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group. The mean operative time was longer in the laparoscopic group (109.9 ±33.4 vs 68.7 ±18.0 min, p <0.001). The overall complication rate was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (18.8% vs 36.8%; p = 0.012), and this difference was maintained only in Clavien-Dindo groups I (3.8% vs 13.6%; p = 0.018) and II (12.5% vs 21.6%; p = 0.049). Regarding individual complications, patients in the LM group had significantly less haematuria (1.3% vs 8.8%, p = 0.031), wound infections (0% vs 4.8%, p = 0.047), and blood transfusions (0% vs 6.4%, p = 0.024).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Laparoscopic Miilin adenometomy is a safe technique, with less intraoperative blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay and catheterisation time, and fewer complications, including a lower transfusion rate, than its open counterpart.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"77 2","pages":"256-261"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11428356/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2023.223","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Laparoscopic adenomectomy for prostates larger than 80 mL is still a topic of debate. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the perioperative outcomes and complications between open Millin (OM) and laparoscopic Millin (LM) adenomectomy.

Material and methods: Perioperative data and complications were retrospectively collected from patients submitted to Millin procedure from August 2019 to August 2022 in a tertiary centre, and OM and LM were compared. Complications were classified according to Clavien-Dindo classification.

Results: A total of 205 patients were identified, 125 in the OM group and 80 in the LM group. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Mean total blood loss (194 ±210 vs 477 ±389 mL, p <0.001), mean haemoglobin drop (1.40 ±1.16 vs 2.62 ±1.42 g/dL, p <0.001), duration of catheterisation (4.63 ±1.39 vs 5.37 ±1.99 days, p = 0.004), and hospital stay (4.59 ±1.72 vs 5.82 ±3.36 days, p = 0.003) were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group. The mean operative time was longer in the laparoscopic group (109.9 ±33.4 vs 68.7 ±18.0 min, p <0.001). The overall complication rate was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (18.8% vs 36.8%; p = 0.012), and this difference was maintained only in Clavien-Dindo groups I (3.8% vs 13.6%; p = 0.018) and II (12.5% vs 21.6%; p = 0.049). Regarding individual complications, patients in the LM group had significantly less haematuria (1.3% vs 8.8%, p = 0.031), wound infections (0% vs 4.8%, p = 0.047), and blood transfusions (0% vs 6.4%, p = 0.024).

Conclusions: Laparoscopic Miilin adenometomy is a safe technique, with less intraoperative blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay and catheterisation time, and fewer complications, including a lower transfusion rate, than its open counterpart.

腹腔镜与开腹经囊腺瘤切除术(Millin):围手术期结果和并发症的比较研究。
导言:腹腔镜腺瘤切除术治疗大于80 mL的前列腺仍是一个争论不休的话题。本研究旨在评估开放式米林(OM)和腹腔镜米林(LM)腺瘤切除术的围手术期结果和并发症:回顾性收集了2019年8月至2022年8月在一家三级中心接受米林手术的患者的围手术期数据和并发症,并对OM和LM进行了比较。并根据 Clavien-Dindo 分类法对并发症进行分类:结果:共确定了205名患者,其中125名为OM组,80名为LM组。两组患者的基线特征相似。平均总失血量(194 ± 210 对 477 ± 389 毫升,P腹腔镜米林子宫腺肌症切除术是一种安全的技术,与开腹手术相比,术中失血少,住院时间和导管插入时间短,并发症少,包括输血率低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Central European Journal of Urology
Central European Journal of Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
48
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信