Publication:
Concurrent repair of inguinal hernias with mesh application during transperitoneal robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: is it safe?

dc.contributor.coauthorAtmaca, Ali Fuat
dc.contributor.coauthorHamidi, Nurullah
dc.contributor.coauthorKeske, Murat
dc.contributor.coauthorArdicoglu, Arslan
dc.contributor.kuauthorCanda, Abdullah Erdem
dc.contributor.kuprofileFaculty Member
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteSchool of Medicine
dc.contributor.yokid116202
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-09T23:59:18Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To assessment the safety of concurrent repair of inguinal hernia (IH) with mesh application during transperitoneal robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy(RARP). Materials and Methods: Data of 20 patients (totally 25 procedures) who performed concurrent IH repair with mesh application during RARP were retrospectively enrolled in this study. Preoperative patient characteristics, intra and postoperative parameters (pathological Gleason grade, prostate volume at surgical specimen, operative time, herniorrhaphy time, estimated blood loss, complications, time of hospitalization, catheterization, and drainage) were evaluated. Standard PSA control and postoperative complications of mesh application such as hernia recurrence, mesh infection, seroma formation and groin pain were evaluated at every follow-up visits (every three in the first year, then every 6 months in years 2 to 5 and annually thereafter. Result: The mean age was 66 ± 8 years in our population. Fifteen (60 %) patients had a unilateral hernia and 5 (40 %) patients had bilateral hernias. The mean operative time was 139 ± 21minutes and estimated mean blood loss was 108 ± 76 mL. The mean duration of IH repair in patients which was 27 ± 5 (range: 17- 40) minutes. The mean time of drainage, hospitalization, and catheterization were 2.5 ± 0.8 days (range: 2-6), 4 ± 0.9 days (range: 2-7) and 8.2 ± 1.9 days (range: 7-14), respectively. We did not observe any intra-operative complication due to RARP or IH repair. Wound evisceration at camera port site developed in only a patient on postoperative day 20. Our median follow-up time was 13 months and we did not observe mesh infection or hernia recurrence during follow-up. Conclusion: Concurrent IH repair with RARP procedure seem to be easy to perform, effective and safe procedure.
dc.description.indexedbyWoS
dc.description.indexedbyScopus
dc.description.indexedbyPubMed
dc.description.issue6
dc.description.openaccessYES
dc.description.publisherscopeInternational
dc.description.volume15
dc.identifier.doi10.22037/uj.v0i0.4158
dc.identifier.issn1735-1308
dc.identifier.linkhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85056712435&doi=10.22037%2fuj.v0i0.4158&partnerID=40&md5=dbb5d1e86be8a0d5acd677c257a29533
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85056712435
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.22037/uj.v0i0.4158
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14288/15614
dc.identifier.wos455285600015
dc.keywordsRobotic surgery
dc.keywordsInguinal hernia
dc.keywordsMesh application
dc.keywordsRadical prostatectomy
dc.languageEnglish
dc.publisherUrology and Nephrology Research Centre
dc.sourceUrology Journal
dc.subjectUrology
dc.subjectNephrology
dc.titleConcurrent repair of inguinal hernias with mesh application during transperitoneal robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: is it safe?
dc.typeJournal Article
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.contributor.authorid0000-0002-5196-653X
local.contributor.kuauthorCanda, Abdullah Erdem

Files