Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 15, Issue 9, pp 2589–2593 | Cite as

An Alternative Access Technique Under Direct Vision for Preperitoneoscopic Pelvic Surgery: Easier for the Beginners

  • Huai-Ching Tai
  • Ming-Kuen Lai
  • Shih-Chieh Chueh
  • Shyh-Chyan Chen
  • Ming-Hsueh Hsieh
  • Hong-Jeng Yu
Urologic Oncology

Abstract

Background

We present an alternative access technique to facilitate preperitoneoscopic (extraperitoneal laparoscopic) approach for radical prostatectomy, herniorrhaphy, and other pelvic procedures.

Methods

A 0° telescope was mounted into a Visiport Optical Trocar (Visiport), and via a periumbilical incision it was advanced under direct vision at first vertically through different layers of the anterior abdominal wall. Immediately before the posterior rectus sheath, it was redirected caudally and horizontally toward the symphysis pubis. The Visiport was withdrawn and replaced by a dissection balloon that was inflated for developing the working space, then it was substituted with a 12-mm trocar to begin the pneumo-extraperitoneum. The surgical procedures are detailed in the attached video.

Results

This technique was used in 168 of 179 patients undergoing preperitoneoscopic surgery (97 radical prostatectomies, 80 totally extraperitoneal herniorrhaphies, and 2 urinary bladder diverticulectomies). Operative parameters were compared with 11 preceding patients approached with the open Hasson technique. All of the procedures to create the preperitoneoscopic space were successfully with no complications. For radical prostatectomy, there was a significantly faster access to the preperitoneal space (38 ± 12 vs 540 ± 69 seconds) and a faster setup of the whole operative space (15 ± 5 vs 29 ± 9 minutes, both P < .05) with the new technique. Less pericannular CO2 leakage was experienced during the preperitoneoscopy with our technique.

Conclusion

This alternative technique offers a simple, safe, quick, and effective access for creating a preperitonescopic working space.

Key Words

Laparoscopy Preperitoneum Visiport Radical prostatectomy Herniorrhaphy 

Supplementary material

10434_2008_9883_MOESM1_ESM.mpg (56 mb)
(MPG 57360 kb)

Reference

  1. 1.
    Gill IS, Clayman RV, Albala DM, et al. Retroperitoneal and pelvic extraperitoneal laparoscopy: an international perspective. Urology 1998; 52:566–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ruiz L, Salomon L, Hoznek A, et al. Comparison of early oncologic results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach. Eur Urol 2004; 46:50–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eden CG, King D, Kooiman GG, et al. Transperitoneal or extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does the approach matter? J Urol 2004; 172:2218–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stolzenburg JU, Do M, Rabenalt R, et al. Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: initial experience after 70 procedures. J Urol 2003; 169:2066–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hoznek A, Antiphon P, Borkowski T, et al. Assessment of surgical technique and perioperative morbidity associated with extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2003; 61:617–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liao CH, Chueh SC, Lai MK, et al. Laparoscopic adrenalectomy for potentially malignant adrenal tumors greater than 5 centimeters. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006; 91:3080–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tamme C, Scheidbach H, Hampe C, et al. Total extraperitoneal endoscopic inguinal hernia repair (TEP). Surg Endosc 2003; 17:190–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rozet F, Galiano M, Cathelineau X, et al. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective evaluation of 600 cases. J Urol 2005; 174:908–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Raboy A, Ferzli G, Albert P. Initial experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 1997; 50:849–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris experience. J Urol 2000; 163:1643–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Remzi M, Klingler HC, Tinzl MV, et al. Morbidity of laparoscopic extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal radical prostatectomy versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2005; 48:83–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Porpiglia F, Terrone C, Tarabuzzi R, et al. Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience of a single center. Urology 2006; 68:376–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rodriguez AR, Kapoor R, Pow-Sang JM. Laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy in complex surgical cases. J Urol 2007; 177:1765–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Endogru T, Teber D, Frede T, et al. Comparison of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using match-pair analysis. Eur Urol 2004; 46:312–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khoury N. A comparative study of laparoscopic extraperitoneal and transabdominal preperitoneal hernioplasty. J Laparoendosc Surg 1995; 5:349–55PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McCormack K, Wake BL, Fraser C, et al. Transabdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) versus totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review. Hernia 2005; 9:109–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Huai-Ching Tai
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ming-Kuen Lai
    • 1
  • Shih-Chieh Chueh
    • 1
  • Shyh-Chyan Chen
    • 1
  • Ming-Hsueh Hsieh
    • 1
  • Hong-Jeng Yu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital and College of MedicineNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of UrologyBuddhist Tzu Chi General Hospital, Taipei BranchTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations