Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Vasc Interv Radiol ; 32(8): 1113-1118, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34062272

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To assess perioperative blood loss following prostatic artery embolization (PAE) before surgery in patients undergoing simple prostatectomy. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was used to identify 63 patients (mean age, 65.3 ± 8.0 years) with prostatic hypertrophy and severe lower urinary tract symptoms who underwent prostatectomy from September 2014 to December 2019, 18 (28.5%) of whom underwent PAE before surgery. Demographic data, pertinent laboratory results, procedural or operative information, hospital course details, and pathology reports were obtained. A 2:1 propensity score‒matching analysis was performed to compare intraoperative blood loss in patients who underwent prostatectomy alone with intraoperative blood loss in those who first underwent bilateral PAE before surgery. RESULTS: Sixteen (89%) of the 18 patients underwent bilateral PAE before surgery. Thirty-two patients who underwent prostatectomy without embolization before surgery were selected for the 2:1 propensity score‒matched analysis based on age, race, surgery type, prostate gland size, and comorbidities. The mean estimated blood loss (EBL) for prostatectomy alone was 545 ± 380 mL (mean ± standard deviation). There was a statistically significant reduction in the EBL for patients who underwent bilateral PAE (303 ± 227 mL, P < .01). The operative time was also significantly decreased for patients who underwent PAE before surgery (P < .05). For patients who underwent PAE, there were no complications related to the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral PAE before surgery appears to be safe and may be effective in reducing perioperative bleeding and operative time.


Subject(s)
Embolization, Therapeutic , Prostatic Hyperplasia , Aged , Arteries , Blood Loss, Surgical/prevention & control , Embolization, Therapeutic/adverse effects , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Propensity Score , Prostatectomy/adverse effects , Prostatic Hyperplasia/surgery , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
2.
J Sex Med ; 16(1): 146-152, 2019 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30551940

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Removal of the penile prosthesis reservoir can be technically challenging because of its difficult locations either deep in the pelvis or high in the abdominal wall. AIM: To describe a detailed surgical technique for reservoir removal through a penoscrotal approach. METHODS: We describe our preferred method for removal of prosthetic reservoir and present a retrospective review of patient outcomes after reservoir removal. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary outcomes included immediate or late complications. Secondary outcomes included operative time. RESULTS: 34 patients underwent reservoir removal with the use of our described technique. 23 patients (67.6%) had reservoirs removed because of device malfunction and 11 (32.4%) because of infection. A total of 18 reservoirs (52.9%) were found in the space of Retzius (SOR), whereas the other 16 (47.1%) were in an alternative/ectopic space. 2 cases (5.9%) required a counterincision to remove the reservoir. Mean overall operative time was 96.2 minutes (range 35-175). There were no complications in this series. There was no statistical difference in operative time between reservoirs removed because of malfunction when compared with infection (P = .283). However, there was a difference in operative time between reservoirs removed from the SOR when compared with those removed from an ectopic space, with mean operating room times of 104.5 and 75.4 minutes, respectively (P = .001). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Reservoir removal through a penoscrotal incision is feasible and safe. STRENGTH & LIMITATIONS: This is the first report, to our knowledge, describing surgical techniques and outcomes for reservoir removal. Limitations include its retrospective nature and lack of validated questionnaires to assess patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Although removal of a reservoir deep in the SOR or placed in alternate/ectopic locations can be challenging, the use of a lighted retractor, meticulous dissection, and a few technical maneuvers described allow for safe removal of the reservoir completely intact while avoiding complications. Our technique for a secondary incision in particularly difficult cases is also described. Clavell-Hernández J, Aly SG, Wang R, et al. Penile Prosthesis Reservoir Removal: Surgical Description and Patient Outcomes. J Sex Med 2019;16:146-152.


Subject(s)
Device Removal , Penile Implantation , Penile Prosthesis/adverse effects , Abdominal Wall/surgery , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Dissection , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Operative Time , Patient Satisfaction , Pelvis/surgery , Prosthesis Design , Retrospective Studies , Surveys and Questionnaires
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...