ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Tenosynovial giant-cell tumor (GCT) arising from cruciate ligaments consists a rather rare entity. Predominantly areas where this tumor appears are the palmar sides of fingers and toes. The involvement of larger joints such as the knee or the ankle is rather rare, but, in the case of synovial joints, the knee joint is particularly affected. Furthermore, rare seems to be the intra-articular localization of the tenosynovial GCT of the tendon sheath. Hereby, we present an arthroscopic approach of treatment with two cases. CASE REPORTS: The first case was a 32-year-old male with a GCT arising from the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). The second case was a 26-year-old male with a GCT arising from the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL). In the first case, a round-shaped mass with a reddish-brown color was located just anterior to the ACL and impeded the full extension of the knee joint, while, in the second case, a well-circumscribed oval-shaped mass was found with a peduncle attached to the synovium of the PCL. After arthroscopic excision, both patients became asymptomatic, with complete lack of pain and full ROM. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of clinical features for the GCT of the knee, and thus, a thorough clinical examination is prudent. Usually, the diagnosis is set after an investigation based on suspicion. This entity can present with symptoms of instability and patients may present signs of mechanical derangement. With the knee joint, meniscal symptoms and locking are often present. The best non-invasive technique to diagnose this tumor has been reported to be the magnetic resonance imaging. Arthroscopic excision has been reported as a safe and effective procedure for treatment.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To report the first prospective comparative analysis of robot-assisted (RASP) vs open simple prostatectomy (OSP) for large prostate glands. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively analysed 41 patients who underwent surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia between 2014 and 2017 at one of two university institutions. Patients were grouped according to the procedure (OSP or RASP) and matched in terms of age, prostate volume, body mass index and prostate-specific antigen level. The two groups were followed prospectively for 3 months, and their postoperative and functional outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Six patients (40%) in the OSP and seven patients (27%) in the RASP arm of the study had preoperative urethral catheters as a result of relapsed urinary retention. The amount of blood loss during surgery was significantly lower in the RASP arm (539 vs 274 mL), but the operating time was significantly longer (134 vs 88 min). One patient in the RASP group experienced a Clavien-Dindo grade II complication, whereas in the OSP group, four patients experienced serious complications (27%); one patient had a bladder rupture (Grade III), one patient developed deep venous thrombosis (Grade II), and two patients required blood transfusions (one unit each; Grade II). Two patients (one from each group) experienced urinary retention after catheter removal that required a urethral catheter replacement. In the follow-up period, there were significant and similar improvements in International Prostate Symptom Scores, uroflowmetry results and post-void residual urine volume in both groups. CONCLUSION: The results showed that RASP provided similar functional outcomes to those of OSP, whilst maintaining a good (or even better) safety profile. Our results suggest that RASP is a viable, efficient and potentially superior alternative to the open procedure.
