Радикальная простатэктомия является золотым стандартом лечения локализованной формы рака предстательной железы. В последнее десятилетие активно внедряются новые хирургические технологии, что безусловно повышает эффективность лечения онкоурологических больных. Несмотря на это, частота интра- и послеоперационных осложнений радикальной простатэктомии остается достаточно высокой. В этой связи минимизация их числа и эффективное лечение становятся актуальными задачами современной урологии. В обзорной статье рассмотрены интра- и ранние послеоперационные осложнения лапароскопической и робот-ассистированной радикальной простатэктомии.

radical prostatectomycomplicationslymphoceleanastomotic leakagepelvic lymph node dissectionрадикальная простатэктомияосложнениялимфоцеленесостоятельность анастомозатазовая лимфаденэктомия1.Pernar CH, Ebot EM, Wilson KM, Mucci LA. The epidemiology of prostate cancer. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2018;8(12): a030361. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a030361Pernar C.H., Ebot E.M., Wilson K.M., Mucci L.A. The epidemiology of prostate cancer // Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2018. Vol. 8, N 12. ID a030361. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a030361Pernar CH, Ebot EM, Wilson KM, Mucci LA. The epidemiology of prostate cancer. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2018;8(12): a030361. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a0303612.Kaprina AD, Starinsky BB, Petrova GV, editors. Malignant neoplasms in Russia in 2017 (morbidity and mortality). Moscow; P.A. Herzen Moscow Research Institute of Oncology; 2018. 250 p. (In Russ.)Злокачественные новообразования в России в 2017 году (заболеваемость и смертность) / под ред. А.Д. Каприна, В.В. Старинского, Г.В. Петровой. Москва: МНИОИ им. П.А. Герцена, 2018. 250 c.Kaprina AD, Starinsky BB, Petrova GV, editors. Malignant neoplasms in Russia in 2017 (morbidity and mortality). Moscow; P.A. Herzen Moscow Research Institute of Oncology; 2018. 250 p. (In Russ.)3.Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology. 1997;50(6):854–857. doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00543-8Schuessler W.W., Schulam P.G., Clayman R.V., Kavoussi L.R. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience // Urology. 1997. Vol. 50, N 6. P. 854–857. doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00543-8Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology. 1997;50(6):854–857. doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00543-84.Binder J, Kramer W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2001;87(4):408–410. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.00115.xBinder J., Kramer W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy // BJU Int. 2001. Vol. 87, N 4. P. 408–410. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.00115.xBinder J, Kramer W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2001;87(4):408–410. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.00115.x5.Martínez-Holguín E, Herranz-Amo F, Hernández-Cavieres J, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy: Comparison between surgical time, complications and length of hospital stay. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2020;44(1):41–48. doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2019.06.008Martínez-Holguín E., Herranz-Amo F., Hernández-Cavieres J., et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy: Comparison between surgical time, complications and length of hospital stay // Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2020. Vol. 44, N 1. P. 41–48. doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2019.06.008Martínez-Holguín E, Herranz-Amo F, Hernández-Cavieres J, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy: Comparison between surgical time, complications and length of hospital stay. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2020;44(1):41–48. doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2019.06.0086.Sujenthiran A, Nossiter J, Parry M, et al. National cohort study comparing severe medium-term urinary complications after robot-assisted vs laparoscopic vs retropubic open radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2018;121(3):445–452. doi: 10.1111/bju.14054Sujenthiran A., Nossiter J., Parry M., et al. National cohort study comparing severe medium-term urinary complications after robot-assisted vs laparoscopic vs retropubic open radical prostatectomy // BJU Int. 2018. Vol. 121, N 3. P. 445–452. doi: 10.1111/bju.14054Sujenthiran A, Nossiter J, Parry M, et al. National cohort study comparing severe medium-term urinary complications after robot-assisted vs laparoscopic vs retropubic open radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2018;121(3):445–452. doi: 10.1111/bju.140547.Ryabov MA, Byadretdinov IS, Kotov SV. Robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy learning curve. Experimental and Clinical Urology. 2021;14(4):37–43. EDN: THLXDC doi: 10.29188/2222-8543-2021-14-4-37-43Рябов М.А., Бядретдинов И.Ш., Котов С.В. Кривая обучения лапароскопической и робот-ассистированной радикальной простатэктомии // Экспериментальная и клиническая урология. 2021. Т. 14, № 4. С. 37–43. EDN: THLXDC doi: 10.29188/2222-8543-2021-14-4-37-43Ryabov MA, Byadretdinov IS, Kotov SV. Robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy learning curve. Experimental and Clinical Urology. 2021;14(4):37–43. EDN: THLXDC doi: 10.29188/2222-8543-2021-14-4-37-438.Hasson HM. A modified instrument and method for laparoscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1971;110(6):886–887. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(71)90593-xHasson H.M. A modified instrument and method for laparoscopy // Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1971. Vol. 110, N 6. P. 886–887. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(71)90593-xHasson HM. A modified instrument and method for laparoscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1971;110(6):886–887. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(71)90593-x9.Hasson HM. Open laparoscopy vs. closed laparoscopy: a comparison of complication rates. Adv Plan Parent. 1978;13(3–4):41–50.Hasson H.M. Open laparoscopy vs. closed laparoscopy: a comparison of complication rates // Adv Plan Parent. 1978. Vol. 13, N 3–4. P. 41–50.Hasson HM. Open laparoscopy vs. closed laparoscopy: a comparison of complication rates. Adv Plan Parent. 1978;13(3–4):41–50.10.Schäfer M, Lauper M, Krähenbühl L. Trocar and Veress needle injuries during laparoscopy. Surg Endosc. 2001;15(3):275–280. doi: 10.1007/s004640000337Schäfer M., Lauper M., Krähenbühl L. Trocar and Veress needle injuries during laparoscopy // Surg Endosc. 2001. Vol. 15, N 3. P. 275–280. doi: 10.1007/s004640000337Schäfer M, Lauper M, Krähenbühl L. Trocar and Veress needle injuries during laparoscopy. Surg Endosc. 2001;15(3):275–280. doi: 10.1007/s00464000033711.Catarci M, Carlini M, Gentileschi P, Santoro E. Major and minor injuries during the creation of pneumoperitoneum. A multicenter study on 12,919 cases. Surg Endosc. 2001;15(6):566–569. doi: 10.1007/s004640000381Catarci M., Carlini M., Gentileschi P., Santoro E. Major and minor injuries during the creation of pneumoperitoneum. A multicenter study on 12,919 cases // Surg Endosc. 2001. Vol. 15, N 6. P. 566–569. doi: 10.1007/s004640000381Catarci M, Carlini M, Gentileschi P, Santoro E. Major and minor injuries during the creation of pneumoperitoneum. A multicenter study on 12,919 cases. Surg Endosc. 2001;15(6):566–569. doi: 10.1007/s00464000038112.Stolzenburg J-U, Rabenalt R, Do M, et al. Complications of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): prevention and management. World J Urol. 2006;24(6):668–675. doi: 10.1007/s00345-006-0133-8Stolzenburg J.-U., Rabenalt R., Do M., et al. Complications of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): prevention and management // World J Urol. 2006. Vol. 24, N 6. P. 668–675. doi: 10.1007/s00345-006-0133-8Stolzenburg J-U, Rabenalt R, Do M, et al. Complications of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): prevention and management. World J Urol. 2006;24(6):668–675. doi: 10.1007/s00345-006-0133-813.Haeuser L, Reese SW, Paciotti M, et al. surgical complications requiring intervention in open versus minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. Urol Int. 2022;106(1):51–55. doi: 10.1159/000515618Haeuser L., Reese S.W., Paciotti M., et al. surgical complications requiring intervention in open versus minimally invasive radical prostatectomy // Urol Int. 2022. Vol. 106, N 1. P. 51–55. doi: 10.1159/000515618Haeuser L, Reese SW, Paciotti M, et al. surgical complications requiring intervention in open versus minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. Urol Int. 2022;106(1):51–55. doi: 10.1159/00051561814.Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):431–452. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.044Novara G., Ficarra V., Rosen R.C., et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy // Eur Urol. 2012. Vol. 62, N 3. P. 431–452. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.044Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):431–452. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.04415.Ploussard G, Briganti A, de la Taille A, et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: efficacy, limitations, and complications — a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2014;65(1):7–16. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.057Ploussard G., Briganti A., de la Taille A., et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: efficacy, limitations, and complications — a systematic review of the literature // Eur Urol. 2014. Vol. 65, N 1. P. 7–16. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.057Ploussard G, Briganti A, de la Taille A, et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: efficacy, limitations, and complications — a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2014;65(1):7–16. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.05716.Fossati N, Willemse P-PM, Van den Broeck T, et al. The benefits and harms of different extents of lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: A systematic review. Eur Urol. 2017;72(1):84–109. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.12.003Fossati N., Willemse P.-P.M., Van den Broeck T., et al. The benefits and harms of different extents of lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: A systematic review // Eur Urol. 2017. Vol. 72, N 1. P. 84–109. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.12.003Fossati N, Willemse P-PM, Van den Broeck T, et al. The benefits and harms of different extents of lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: A systematic review. Eur Urol. 2017;72(1):84–109. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.12.00317.Davis JW, Shah JB, Achim M. Robot-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) at the time of radical prostatectomy (RP): a video-based illustration of technique, results, and unmet patient selection needs. BJU Int. 2011;108(6b):993–998. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10454.xDavis J.W., Shah J.B., Achim M. Robot-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) at the time of radical prostatectomy (RP): a video-based illustration of technique, results, and unmet patient selection needs // BJU Int. 2011. Vol. 108, N 6b. P. 993–998. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10454.xDavis JW, Shah JB, Achim M. Robot-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) at the time of radical prostatectomy (RP): a video-based illustration of technique, results, and unmet patient selection needs. BJU Int. 2011;108(6b):993–998. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10454.x18.Lestingi JFP, Guglielmetti GB, Trinh Q-D, et al. Extended versus limited pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: early oncological outcomes from a randomized phase 3 trial. Eur Urol. 2021;79(5): 595–604. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.11.040Lestingi J.F.P., Guglielmetti G.B., Trinh Q.-D., et al. Extended versus limited pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: early oncological outcomes from a randomized phase 3 trial // Eur Urol. 2021. Vol. 79, N 5. P. 595–604. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.11.040Lestingi JFP, Guglielmetti GB, Trinh Q-D, et al. Extended versus limited pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: early oncological outcomes from a randomized phase 3 trial. Eur Urol. 2021;79(5): 595–604. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.11.04019.Touijer KA, Sjoberg DD, Benfante N, et al. Limited versus extended pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: A randomized clinical trial. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4(4):532–539. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.03.006Touijer K.A., Sjoberg D.D., Benfante N., et al. Limited versus extended pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: A randomized clinical trial // Eur Urol Oncol. 2021. Vol. 4, N 4. P. 532–539. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.03.006Touijer KA, Sjoberg DD, Benfante N, et al. Limited versus extended pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: A randomized clinical trial. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4(4):532–539. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.03.00620.Jhaveri JK, Penna FJ, Diaz-Insua M, et al. Ureteral injuries sustained during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2014;28(3):318–324. doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0564Jhaveri J.K., Penna F.J., Diaz-Insua M., et al. Ureteral injuries sustained during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy // J Endourol. 2014. Vol. 28, N 3. P. 318–324. doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0564Jhaveri JK, Penna FJ, Diaz-Insua M, et al. Ureteral injuries sustained during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2014;28(3):318–324. doi: 10.1089/end.2013.056421.Gözen AS, Aktoz T, Akin Y, et al. Is it possible to draw a risk map for obturator nerve injury during pelvic lymph node dissection? The heilbronn experience and a review of the literature. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2015;25(10):826–832. doi: 10.1089/lap.2015.0190Gözen A.S., Aktoz T., Akin Y., et al. Is it possible to draw a risk map for obturator nerve injury during pelvic lymph node dissection? The heilbronn experience and a review of the literature // J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2015. Vol. 25, N 10. P. 826–832. doi: 10.1089/lap.2015.0190Gözen AS, Aktoz T, Akin Y, et al. Is it possible to draw a risk map for obturator nerve injury during pelvic lymph node dissection? The heilbronn experience and a review of the literature. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2015;25(10):826–832. doi: 10.1089/lap.2015.019022.Rassweiler J, Hruza M, Teber D, Su L-M. Laparoscopic and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy — critical analysis of the results. Eur Urol. 2006;49(4):612–624. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.12.054Rassweiler J., Hruza M., Teber D., Su L.-M. Laparoscopic and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy — critical analysis of the results // Eur Urol. 2006. Vol. 49, N 4. P. 612–624. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.12.054Rassweiler J, Hruza M, Teber D, Su L-M. Laparoscopic and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy — critical analysis of the results. Eur Urol. 2006;49(4):612–624. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.12.05423.La Riva A, Sayegh AS, Perez LC, et al. Obturator nerve injury in robotic pelvic surgery: scenarios and management strategies. Eur Urol. 2023;83(4):361–368. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.12.034La Riva A., Sayegh A.S., Perez L.C., et al. Obturator nerve injury in robotic pelvic surgery: scenarios and management strategies // Eur Urol. 2023. Vol. 83, N 4. P. 361–368. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.12.034La Riva A, Sayegh AS, Perez LC, et al. Obturator nerve injury in robotic pelvic surgery: scenarios and management strategies. Eur Urol. 2023;83(4):361–368. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.12.03424.Froehner M, Novotny V, Koch R, et al. Perioperative complications after radical prostatectomy: open versus robot-assisted laparoscopic approach. Urol Int. 2013;90(3):312–315. doi: 10.1159/000345323Froehner M., Novotny V., Koch R., et al. Perioperative complications after radical prostatectomy: open versus robot-assisted laparoscopic approach // Urol Int. 2013. Vol. 90, N 3. P. 312–315. doi: 10.1159/000345323Froehner M, Novotny V, Koch R, et al. Perioperative complications after radical prostatectomy: open versus robot-assisted laparoscopic approach. Urol Int. 2013;90(3):312–315. doi: 10.1159/00034532325.Murphy DG, Bjartell A, Ficarra V, et al. Downsides of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: limitations and complications. Eur Urol. 2010;57(5):735–746. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.12.021Murphy D.G., Bjartell A., Ficarra V., et al. Downsides of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: limitations and complications // Eur Urol. 2010. Vol. 57, N 5. P. 735–746. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.12.021Murphy DG, Bjartell A, Ficarra V, et al. Downsides of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: limitations and complications. Eur Urol. 2010;57(5):735–746. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.12.02126.Lei Y, Alemozaffar M, Williams SB, et al. Athermal division and selective suture ligation of the dorsal vein complex during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of technique and outcomes. Eur Urol. 2011;59(2):235–243. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.08.043Lei Y., Alemozaffar M., Williams S.B., et al. Athermal division and selective suture ligation of the dorsal vein complex during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of technique and outcomes // Eur Urol. 2011. Vol. 59, N 2. P. 235–243. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.08.043Lei Y, Alemozaffar M, Williams SB, et al. Athermal division and selective suture ligation of the dorsal vein complex during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of technique and outcomes. Eur Urol. 2011;59(2):235–243. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.08.04327.Li H, Liu C, Zhang H, et al. The use of unidirectional barbed suture for urethrovesical anastomosis during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0131167. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131167Li H., Liu C., Zhang H., et al. The use of unidirectional barbed suture for urethrovesical anastomosis during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety // PLoS One. 2015. Vol. 10, N 7. ID e0131167. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131167Li H, Liu C, Zhang H, et al. The use of unidirectional barbed suture for urethrovesical anastomosis during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0131167. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.013116728.Kowalewski KF, Tapking C, Hetjens S, et al. Interrupted versus continuous suturing for vesicourethral anastomosis during radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5(6):980–991. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.05.009Kowalewski K.F., Tapking C., Hetjens S., et al. Interrupted versus continuous suturing for vesicourethral anastomosis during radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis // Eur Urol Focus. 2019. Vol. 5, N 6. P. 980–991. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.05.009Kowalewski KF, Tapking C, Hetjens S, et al. Interrupted versus continuous suturing for vesicourethral anastomosis during radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5(6):980–991. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.05.00929.Matsuyama H, Matsumoto H, Nagao K, et al. Running suture versus interrupted suture for vesicourethral anastomosis in retropubic radical prostatectomy: a randomized study. Int J Urol. 2015;22(3):271–277. doi: 10.1111/iju.12667Matsuyama H., Matsumoto H., Nagao K., et al. Running suture versus interrupted suture for vesicourethral anastomosis in retropubic radical prostatectomy: a randomized study // Int J Urol. 2015. Vol. 22, N 3. P. 271–277. doi: 10.1111/iju.12667Matsuyama H, Matsumoto H, Nagao K, et al. Running suture versus interrupted suture for vesicourethral anastomosis in retropubic radical prostatectomy: a randomized study. Int J Urol. 2015;22(3):271–277. doi: 10.1111/iju.1266730.Al-Shukri SK, Nevirovich ES, Kuzmin IV, Boriskin AG. Early and late complications of radical prostatectomy. Urology reports (St. Petersburg). 2012;2(2):10–14. EDN: PZHTET doi: 10.17816/uroved2210-14Аль-Шукри С.Х., Невирович Е.С., Кузьмин И.В., Борискин А.Г. Ранние и поздние осложнения радикальной простатэктомии // Урологические ведомости. 2012. Т. 2, № 2. C. 10–14. EDN: PZHTET doi: 10.17816/uroved2210-14Al-Shukri SK, Nevirovich ES, Kuzmin IV, Boriskin AG. Early and late complications of radical prostatectomy. Urology reports (St. Petersburg). 2012;2(2):10–14. EDN: PZHTET doi: 10.17816/uroved2210-1431.Pompe RS, Beyer B, Haese A, et al. Postoperative complications of contemporary open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using standardised reporting systems. BJU Int. 2018;122(5):801–807. doi: 10.1111/bju.14369Pompe R.S., Beyer B., Haese A., et al. Postoperative complications of contemporary open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using standardised reporting systems // BJU Int. 2018. Vol. 122, N 5. P. 801–807. doi: 10.1111/bju.14369Pompe RS, Beyer B, Haese A, et al. Postoperative complications of contemporary open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using standardised reporting systems. BJU Int. 2018;122(5):801–807. doi: 10.1111/bju.1436932.Tillier C, van Muilekom HAM, Bloos-van der Hulst J, et al. Vesico-urethral anastomosis (VUA) evaluation of short- and long-term outcome after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP): selective cystogram to improve outcome. J Robot Surg. 2017;11(4):441–446. doi: 10.1007/s11701-017-0677-1Tillier C., van Muilekom H.A.M., Bloos-van der Hulst J., et al. Vesico-urethral anastomosis (VUA) evaluation of short- and long-term outcome after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP): selective cystogram to improve outcome // J Robot Surg. 2017. Vol. 11, N 4. P. 441–446. doi: 10.1007/s11701-017-0677-1Tillier C, van Muilekom HAM, Bloos-van der Hulst J, et al. Vesico-urethral anastomosis (VUA) evaluation of short- and long-term outcome after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP): selective cystogram to improve outcome. J Robot Surg. 2017;11(4):441–446. doi: 10.1007/s11701-017-0677-133.Motterle G, Morlacco A, Zanovello N, et al. Surgical strategies for lymphocele prevention in minimally invasive radical prostatectomy and lymph node dissection: A systematic review. J Endourol. 2020;34(2):113–120. doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0716Motterle G., Morlacco A., Zanovello N., et al. Surgical strategies for lymphocele prevention in minimally invasive radical prostatectomy and lymph node dissection: A systematic review // J Endourol. 2020. Vol. 34, N 2. P. 113–120. doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0716Motterle G, Morlacco A, Zanovello N, et al. Surgical strategies for lymphocele prevention in minimally invasive radical prostatectomy and lymph node dissection: A systematic review. J Endourol. 2020;34(2):113–120. doi: 10.1089/end.2019.071634.Cacciamani GE, Maas M, Nassiri N, et al. Impact of pelvic lymph node dissection and its extent on perioperative morbidity in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4(2):134–149. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.02.00Cacciamani G.E., Maas M., Nassiri N., et al. Impact of pelvic lymph node dissection and its extent on perioperative morbidity in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis // Eur Urol Oncol. 2021. Vol. 4, N 2. P. 134–149. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.02.001Cacciamani GE, Maas M, Nassiri N, et al. Impact of pelvic lymph node dissection and its extent on perioperative morbidity in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4(2):134–149. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.02.0035.Tsaur I, Thomas C. Risk factors, complications and management of lymphocele formation after radical prostatectomy: A mini-review. Int J Urol. 2019;26(7):711–716. doi: 10.1111/iju.13964Tsaur I., Thomas C. Risk factors, complications and management of lymphocele formation after radical prostatectomy: A mini-review // Int J Urol. 2019. Vol. 26, N 7. P. 711–716. doi: 10.1111/iju.13964Tsaur I, Thomas C. Risk factors, complications and management of lymphocele formation after radical prostatectomy: A mini-review. Int J Urol. 2019;26(7):711–716. doi: 10.1111/iju.13964