Yiğit AKIN, Enis Mert YORULMAZ

Prostat kanserinde minimal invaziv cerrahi tedavi sonrası erektil disfonksiyonun güncel literatür eşliğinde değerlendirilmesi

Prostat kanseri erkeklerde en sık teşhis edilen kanserler arasında olup; gelişen tanı yöntemleri neticesinde prevalansı giderek artmaktadır. Gelişen tanı yöntemlerini takip eden yeni tedavi yöntemleri de mev- cuttur. Prostat kanseri tedavisi sonrası en sık görülen komplikasyon erektil disfonksiyondur. Tanı yaşının düşmesi ile bu komplikasyon günümüzde daha fazla önem arz etmekte ve irdelenmektedir. Bu derlemede sizlere prostat kanserinde uygulanan minimal invaziv cer- rahi tedavilerin erektil fonksiyona etkisini güncel literatür eşliğinde sunacağız.

Evaluation of erectile dysfunction after minimally invasive surgical treatment in prostate cancer with current literature

Prostate cancer is among the most frequently diagnosed cancers in men; Its prevalence is increasing gradually as a result of developing diagnostic methods. There are also new treatment methods that follow the developing diagnostic methods. The most common complication after prostate cancer treatment is erectile dysfunction. With the decrease in the age of diagnosis, this complication is more important and is being discussed today. In this review, we will present the effect of minimally invasive surgical treatments applied in prostate cancer on erectile function in the light of current literature.

PDF

___

1. Culp MBB, Soerjomataram I, Efstathiou JA, Bray F, Jemal A. Recent global patterns in prostate cancer ıncidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol. 2020;77:38–52. [CrossRef ]
2. Etzioni R, Gulati R, Cooperberg MR, Penson DM, Weiss NS, Thompson IM. Limitations of basing screening policies on screening trials: The US preventive services task force and prostate cancer screening. Med Care. 2013;51:295–300. [CrossRef ]
3. Carlsson S, Nilsson AE, Schumacher MC, Jonsson MN, Volz DS, Steineck G, Wiklund PN. Surgery-related complications in 1253 robot-assisted and 485 open retropubic radical prostatectomies at the Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden. Urology. 2010;75:1092–7. [CrossRef ]
4. Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A, Graefen M, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2009;55:1037–63. [CrossRef ]
5. Roumeguere T, Bollens R, Bossche MV, Rochet D, Bialek D, Hoffman P, et al. Radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of oncological and functional results between open and laparoscopic approaches. World J Urol. 2003;20:360–6. [CrossRef ]
6. Joseph JV, Vicente I, Madeb R, Erturk E, Patel HRH. Robot- assisted vs pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: are there any differences? BJU Int. 2005;96:39–42. [CrossRef ]
7. Anastasiadis AG, Salomon L, Katz R, Hoznek A, Chopin D, Abbou C-C. Radical retropubic versus laparoscopic prostatectomy: A prospective comparison of functional outcome. Urology. 2003;62:292–7. [CrossRef ]
8. Touijer K, Eastham JA, Secin FP, Otero JR, Serio A, Stasi J, et al. Comprehensive prospective comparative analysis of outcomes between open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy conducted in 2003 to 2005. J Urol. 2008;179:1811–7. [CrossRef ]
9. Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M; Members of the VIP Team. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot- assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int. 2003;92:205–10. [CrossRef ]
10. Wen X-Q, Huang W-T, Situ J, Hu C, Ye C-W, Gao X. Single- port laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Initial experience and technical points to reduce its difficulties. Chin Med J (Engl) 2011;124:4092–5. [CrossRef ]
11. Akin Y, Kose O, Gulmez H, Mar RL, Erturhan S, Gorgel SN, et al. A novel surgical technique for extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy with using 3 trocars: results after 154 cases. Arch Esp Urol. 2021;74:231–8. https://www.aeurologia.com/EN/ Y2021/V74/I2/231