http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Penile Epidermal Cyst in a Patient With Augmentation Penoplasty
정재흥,엄민섭,Francis Raymond P. Arkoncel,Yun Hsien Sung,김원,변현근,주정민,김광진,김성진 대한비뇨의학회 2013 Investigative and Clinical Urology Vol.54 No.3
A 44-year-old male patient who had undergone augmentation penoplasty 20 years previously presented with a slowly growing penoscrotal mass. The penile mass was excised totally and the pathologic diagnosis was an epidermal cyst. Epidermal cysts are benign disorders that can occur in any part of the body. However, an epidermal cyst as a late complication of augmentation penoplasty is extremely rare. We report this case of a penile epidermal cyst that developed after augmentation penoplasty.
정재형,나군호,Francis Raymond P. Arkoncel,이재원,오철규,Noor Ashani Md Yusoff,김광진 연세대학교의과대학 2012 Yonsei medical journal Vol.53 No.1
A 62-year-old male patient with prostate cancer and bilateral renal cell carcinoma underwent a simultaneous robot-assisted bilateral partial nephrectomy and radical prostatectomy. We describe our initial experience of combined operation with a port strategy allowing reuse of ports and surgical considerations because of prolonged pneumoperitoneum.
Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgeries: A Single-Center Experience of 171 Consecutive Cases
최경화,함원식,나군호,이재원,전황균,Francis Raymond P. Arkoncel,양승철,한웅규 대한비뇨의학회 2011 Investigative and Clinical Urology Vol.52 No.1
Purpose: We report our experience to date with 171 patients who underwent laparoendoscopic single-site surgery for diverse urologic diseases in a single institution. Materials and Methods: Between December 2008 and August 2010, we performed 171 consecutive laparoendoscopic single-site surgeries. These included simple nephrectomy (n=18; robotic surgeries, n=1), radical nephrectomy (n=26; robotic surgeries, n=2), partial nephrectomy (n=59; robotic surgeries, n=56), nephroureterectomy (n=20; robotic surgeries, n=12), pyeloplasty (n=4), renal cyst decortications (n=22), adrenalectomy (n=4; robotic surgeries, n=2), ureterolithotomy (n=10), partial cystectomy (n=3), ureterectomy (n=1), urachal mass excision (n=1), orchiectomy (n=1), seminal vesiculectomy (n=1), and retroperitoneal mass excision (n=1). All procedures were performed by use of a homemade single-port device with a wound retractor and surgical gloves. A prospective study was performed to evaluate outcomes in 171 cases. Results: Of the 171 patients, 98 underwent conventional laparoendoscopic single-site surgery and 73 underwent robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery. Mean patient age was 53 years, mean operative time was 190.8 minutes, and mean estimated blood loss was 204 ml. Intraoperative complications occurred in seven cases (4.1%), and postoperative complications in nine cases (5.3%). There were no complications classified as Grade IIIb or higher (Clavien-Dindo classification for surgical complications). Conversion to mini-incision open surgery occurred in seven (4.1%) cases. Regarding oncologic outcomes, no cancer-related events occurred during follow-up other than one aggressive progression of Ewing sarcoma. Conclusions: Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery is technically feasible and safe for various urologic diseases; however, surgical experience and long-term follow-up are needed to test the superiority of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery. Purpose: We report our experience to date with 171 patients who underwent laparoendoscopic single-site surgery for diverse urologic diseases in a single institution. Materials and Methods: Between December 2008 and August 2010, we performed 171 consecutive laparoendoscopic single-site surgeries. These included simple nephrectomy (n=18; robotic surgeries, n=1), radical nephrectomy (n=26; robotic surgeries, n=2), partial nephrectomy (n=59; robotic surgeries, n=56), nephroureterectomy (n=20; robotic surgeries, n=12), pyeloplasty (n=4), renal cyst decortications (n=22), adrenalectomy (n=4; robotic surgeries, n=2), ureterolithotomy (n=10), partial cystectomy (n=3), ureterectomy (n=1), urachal mass excision (n=1), orchiectomy (n=1), seminal vesiculectomy (n=1), and retroperitoneal mass excision (n=1). All procedures were performed by use of a homemade single-port device with a wound retractor and surgical gloves. A prospective study was performed to evaluate outcomes in 171 cases. Results: Of the 171 patients, 98 underwent conventional laparoendoscopic single-site surgery and 73 underwent robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery. Mean patient age was 53 years, mean operative time was 190.8 minutes, and mean estimated blood loss was 204 ml. Intraoperative complications occurred in seven cases (4.1%), and postoperative complications in nine cases (5.3%). There were no complications classified as Grade IIIb or higher (Clavien-Dindo classification for surgical complications). Conversion to mini-incision open surgery occurred in seven (4.1%) cases. Regarding oncologic outcomes, no cancer-related events occurred during follow-up other than one aggressive progression of Ewing sarcoma. Conclusions: Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery is technically feasible and safe for various urologic diseases; however, surgical experience and long-term follow-up are needed to test the superiority of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery.