Implications of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair on open, laparoscopic, and robotic radical prostatectomy

Published online: 30 December 2013Purpose: There have been anecdotal reports of surgeons having to abandon radical prostatectomy (RP) after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR) due to obliteration of tissue planes by mesh. Nodal dissection may also be compromised. We prospectively collected data from four experienced prostate surgeons from separate institutions. Our objective was to evaluate the success rate of performing open RP (ORP), laparoscopic RP (LRP) and robotic assisted RP (RALRP) and pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) after LIHR, and the frequency of complications. Methods: A retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained databases of men who underwent RP after LIHR between 2004 and 2010 at four institutions was undertaken. The data recorded included age, preoperative prostate-specific antigen, preoperative Gleason score, and clinical stage. The operative approach, success or failure to perform RP, success or failure to perform PLND, pathological stage, and complications were also recorded. Results: A total of 1,181 men underwent RP between 2004 and 2010. Fifty-seven patients (4.8%) underwent RP after LIHR. An ORP was attempted in 19 patients, LRP in 33, and RALRP in 5. All 57 cases were able to be successfully completed. Ten of the 18 open PLND were able to be completed (55.6%). Four of the 22 laparoscopic LND were able to be completed (18.2%). Robotic LND was possible in 5 of 5 cases (100%). Therefore, it was not possible to complete a LND 56.8% of patients. Complications were limited to ten patients. These complications included one LRP converted to ORP due to failure to progress, and one rectourethral fistula in a salvage procedure post failed high intensity focused ultrasound. Conclusions: LIHR is an increasingly common method of treating inguinal hernias. LIHR is not a contra-indication to RP. However PLND may not be possible in over 50% of patients who have had LIHR. Therefore, these patients may be under-staged and under treated.Dan Spernat, David Sofield, Daniel Moon, Mark Louie-Johnsun, Henry H Wo

Extended versus inpatient thromboprophylaxis with heparins following major open abdominopelvic surgery for malignancy: a systematic review of efficacy and safety

Abstract Background Patients undergoing open abdominopelvic procedures for malignancy are at high risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE). This risk can be mitigated with prophylaxis; however, optimum duration in this population remains unknown. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of contemporary literature on the use of heparin thromboprophylaxis following major open pelvic surgery for malignancy, comparing the efficacy and safety of extended duration to inpatient treatment. Methods A study protocol describing search strategy and inclusion and exclusion criteria was developed and registered with PROSPERO. A literature review was conducted in accordance with the protocol. Results Literature review identified only 4 studies directly comparing extended and inpatient duration prophylaxis, with a combined population of 3198 and 3135 patients for VTE rate and bleeding events, respectively. Despite many studies reporting lower VTE rates in patients receiving extended prophylaxis, no statistically significant difference in rates of postoperative VTE (p = 0.18) or bleeding complications (p = 0.43) was identified between patients receiving extended duration prophylaxis and those receiving inpatient only prophylaxis. Conclusion On the review of contemporary literature, no significant difference was found in rates of postoperative VTE or bleeding complications between patients receiving extended duration heparin VTE prophylaxis and those receiving inpatient prophylaxis after open abdominopelvic surgery for malignancy. This raises the question of how extended duration prophylaxis has become common practice in this population, and whether this needs to be re-evaluated. </jats:sec

Implications of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair on open, laparoscopic, and robotic radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: There have been anecdotal reports of surgeons having to abandon radical prostatectomy (RP) after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR) due to obliteration of tissue planes by mesh. Nodal dissection may also be compromised. We prospectively collected data from four experienced prostate surgeons from separate institutions. Our objective was to evaluate the success rate of performing open RP (ORP), laparoscopic RP (LRP) and robotic assisted RP (RALRP) and pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) after LIHR, and the frequency of complications. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained databases of men who underwent RP after LIHR between 2004 and 2010 at four institutions was undertaken. The data recorded included age, preoperative prostate-specific antigen, preoperative Gleason score, and clinical stage. The operative approach, success or failure to perform RP, success or failure to perform PLND, pathological stage, and complications were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 1,181 men underwent RP between 2004 and 2010. Fifty-seven patients (4.8%) underwent RP after LIHR. An ORP was attempted in 19 patients, LRP in 33, and RALRP in 5. All 57 cases were able to be successfully completed. Ten of the 18 open PLND were able to be completed (55.6%). Four of the 22 laparoscopic LND were able to be completed (18.2%). Robotic LND was possible in 5 of 5 cases (100%). Therefore, it was not possible to complete a LND 56.8% of patients. Complications were limited to ten patients. These complications included one LRP converted to ORP due to failure to progress, and one rectourethral fistula in a salvage procedure post failed high intensity focused ultrasound. CONCLUSIONS: LIHR is an increasingly common method of treating inguinal hernias. LIHR is not a contra-indication to RP. However PLND may not be possible in over 50% of patients who have had LIHR. Therefore, these patients may be under-staged and under treated

Informed consent in TURP - should structured written consent be the minimum standard of practice in the 21st century?

Abstract 38C. West, K. Moretti, D. Spernat, J. Miller, M. Lloyd, B. Landers and A. Porte