Catheter-free option? Not an endorsement

I was actually searching for something else, and ran across this:
----------------
Catheter-free Recovery
For most men, one of the biggest complaints about prostate surgery is discomfort from the urethral catheter. To address this issue, Dr. Menon has developed a surgical technique that eliminates use of the catheter. Urine is drained instead through a small tube, much like an IV tube, through the abdomen. The response from patients has been truly remarkable. When given the choice, 98 percent of our prostatectomy patients prefer this option. More than 400 men have undergone this procedure at the Vattikuti Urology Institute, giving us the largest patient experience with this technique. Make sure you ask us if this option is right for you.
-----------------

The full text is at http://www.henryfordhealth.org/19085.cfm
As the subject says, this is not an endorsement. I just stumbled across this, and wonder what others think. Maybe some here have tried this. Personally, it's not obvious to me that an abdominal tube is preferable to a catheter. You'd still have to wear a bag of some sort.

[What I was searching for was an objective discussion about open vs robotic surgery. Prompted by some members's cases of surgeons saying that robotic would have failed and they'd have to resort to robotic. The search naturally turns up tons of sites telling you how wonderful robotic is. Perhaps buried in there is a listing of advanages of open surgery. Haven't found it yet.]

I'm with Piano. No tube is the best tube, but I like natures tube, it was intended to be there. There are times when surgery is difficult regardless of modality. Dr Menon, has a couple reasons he knows a lot about this. He was the very first robotic laproscopic surgeon. And when you are a pioneer, it's not always like Daniel Boone. I am sure there were lessons in the process. However, his great contributions are ever lasting. But again, regardless of modality, things can go awry. I have seen many cases here and it isn't predictable.

On the other robotic part. In open surgery, a large gash is made for the surgeons access. In robotics, when this surgery is done, tiny holes are made for the arms of the robot and then the abdomen cavity is inflated so that the surgeon can view the field with a laproscopic camera. The advantage for open is that a palpable tumor can be felt by a surgeons hands. The advantage of robotics is two fold ~ He can magnify the field of vision many times with clarity and in locations he can't see otherwise. The second advantage is because the surgery is less invasive there is less blood loss. I don't buy arguments that the procedure doesn't remove enough tissue, but an inexperienced surgeon might. There are real times when a robotic procedure is aborted, and an open procedure completed. Any patient that has had a previous abdominal surgery should ask about this. Because of scarring, prosthetics, and many unknowns, it may be worthwile to fore go the robotic procedure in favor of an experienced open surgeon. It is a matter of having the best guy for you, and this may be something to review. I personally had a great experience with the same doctor as DJ. Dr Wilson took extra care and time when he saw possible extraprostatic extension and he was right. The plumbing worked fine.

Again, the surgeon is more important than the modality. But they can be great robotic, laproscopic, or open...and still have those rare cases where complications happen.

Tony

DJ, that's an interesting alternative to the catheter, but sounds to me, more invasive then a standard catheter, and this is coming from the guy that is now on day 53 of having a catheter in place. I don't see the advantage of doing i the other way, and how do they remove the tube from the abdomen when they are through healing? Interesting, though.

David in SC

If I did this link correctly, this is a good piece on advantages of open rp
palpable-prostate.blogspot.com/search?q=2007%2F03%2Frp-vs-lrp-vs-rlrp-part-1-open-surgery.html%2B

david in SC

Post Edited By Moderator (James C.) : 1/6/2009 9:50:14 AM (GMT-7)

David, thanks for the interesting link. Looks good.

zufus, prior to my surgery, I had to sign off what the surgeon was going to do. The prepared form said prostatectomy, but the surgeon said we're also going to do a lymph node dissection, so he wrote that in by hand, and had me sign that off as well.

One more point of clarification, I wanted to be clear that this is also not a non-endorsement (double negative, anyone?). The discussion seems to be that this is a respectable doctor with an interesting option. At first blush, it doesn't seem all that compelling, but maybe it wasn't described well enough on the website.

Ohio, with choices like that, don't blame you at all for wanting to keep getting opinions. That first choice sounds so very drastic, not playing doctor here, but sounds so extreme. I wish you well in your search and decision process.

David in SC