Journals / Sakarya Tıp Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1

Robot Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy In Sakarya University: Our Initial Experience

Sakarya Üniversitesi’nde Robot Yardımlı Laparoskopik Radikal Prostatektomi: Başlangıç Deneyimlerimiz

Pages
134–140
Publication Date
2018-03-26
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Better oncologic and functional results will be obtained as surgical experience increases.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To present our robot assisted laparoscopic radical prosatatectomy (RALRP) results.Method: The results of patients who underwent RALRP between February 2015 and December 2017 for localized prostate cancer (PCa) at Sakarya University were retrospectively evaluated.Results: Mean follow-up time was 16.1 (1-36) months.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The mean patient age was 64.04 ± 6.33 years.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Better oncologic and functional results will be obtained as surgical experience increases.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Öğrenme eğrisi · prostat kanseri · Lurning curve

Abstract

Objective: To present our robot assisted laparoscopic radical prosatatectomy (RALRP) results.Method: The results of patients who underwent RALRP between February 2015 and December 2017 for localized prostate cancer (PCa) at Sakarya University were retrospectively evaluated.Results: Mean follow-up time was 16.1 (1-36) months. The mean patient age was 64.04 ± 6.33 years. According to D’Amico risk classification; 29 (60.4%) patients were found to have low risk, 13 (27.1%) patients have moderate risk and 6 (12.5%) patients have high risk. Mean operation time was 237.7 ± 48.07 min, mean estimated blood loss was 190.4 ± 65.8 ml. Mean draining time was 3.93 ± 1.81 days, mean hospitalization time was 4.66 ± 1.91 days and mean catheterization time was 14.1 ± 2.1 days. Surgical margin positivity was found in 10 (20.8%) patients. The continent rate at postoperative 1th, 6th and 12th months were 50%, 71.4% and 85.2%; respectively. The potency rates at postoperative 1th, 6th and 12th months were 37.5%, 42.9% and 51.2%; respectively. Biochemical recurrence was detected in 1 patient at follow-up period. Conclusion: RALRP is an effective and reliable method for localized PCa treatment. Our results are consistent with the literature. Better oncologic and functional results will be obtained as surgical experience increases.

Özet

Amaç: Robot yardımlı laparoskopik radikal prostatektomi (RYLRP) sonuçlarımızı sunmak.Yöntem: Şubat 2015 – Aralık 2017 yılları arasında lokalize prostat kanseri (PCa) nedeniyle Sakary Üniversitesi’nde RYLRP operasyonu uygulanan hastaların sonuçları retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi.Bulgular: Hastaların ortalama takip süreleri 16.1 (1-36) ay olarak bulundu. Hastaların ortalama yaşı 64.04 ± 6.33 yıl olarak saptandı. D’Amico risk sınıflamasına göre hastaların 29’u (%60.4) düşük risk, 13’ü (%27.1) orta risk ve 6’sı (%12.5) yüksek risk sınıfında saptandı. Ortalama operasyon süresi 237.7 ± 48.07 dk, ortalama tahmini kan kaybı 190.4 ± 65.8 ml olarak bulundu. Ortalama dren çekilme süresi 3.93 ± 1.81 gün, ortalama hastanede kalış süresi 4.66 ± 1.91 gün, ortalama sonda çekilme süresi 14.1 ± 2.1 gün olarak bulundu. On (%20,8) hastada cerrahi sınır pozitif saptandı. Kontinans oranları postoperatif 1. ay, 6. ay ve 12. ay’da sırasıyla %50, %71.4 ve %85.2 olarak bulundu. Potens oranları postoperatif 1. ay, 6. ay ve 12. ay’da sırasıyla %37.5, %42.9 ve %51.2 olarak tespit edildi. Takiplerde 1 hastada biyokimyasal nüks tespit edildi.Sonuç: RYLRP lokalize PCa’nin tedavisinde etkin ve güvenilir bir yöntemdir. Sonuçlarımız literatürle uyumludur. Cerrahi tecrübe arttıkça daha iyi onkolojik ve fonksiyonel sonuçlar alınacaktır. Anahtar kelime: Öğrenme eğrisi, prostat kanseri, robotik cerrahi.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇİMEN, H. İ., DİREK, H. C., HALİS, F., KÖSE, O., GÖKÇE, A., SAĞLAM, H. S. (2018). Robot Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy In Sakarya University: Our Initial Experience. Sakarya Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1, 134–140. https://ajindex.com/articles/261646

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (2)

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin 2017; 67(1): 2. Schröder FH, Carter HB, Wolters T, van den Berg RC, Gosselaar C, Bangma CH et al. Early detection of prostate cancer in 2007. Part 1: PSA and PSA kinetics. Eur Urol 2008; 53(3): 468-77. 3. Walsh PC. Anatomic Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy; in Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED, Wein AJ(Eds.): Campbell’s Urology 7th Edition, 1998: 2565-88.4. Bianco FJ Jr, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Radical prostatectomy: longterm cancer control and recovery of sexual and urinary function (“trifecta”). Urology 2005; 66: 83-94. [CrossRef]5. Binder J, Brautigam R, Jonas D, Bentas W. Robotic surgery in urology: fact or fantasy BJU international 2004;94:1183-1187.6. Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Barry MJ, D’Amico AV, Weinberg AC et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA 2009;302:1557-1564.7. Duffey B, Varda B, Konety B. Quality of evidence to compare outcomes of open and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Current urology reports 2011;12:229-236.8. Kang DC, Hardee MJ, Fesperman SF, Stoffs TL, Dahm P. Low quality of evidence for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: results of a systematic review of the published literature. European urology2010;57:930-937.9. Lowrance WT, Tarin TV, Shariat SF. Evidence-based comparison of robotic and open radical prostatectomy. TheScientificWorldJournal. 2010;10:2228-223710.
  2. Cooperberg MR, Pasta DJ, Elkin EP, Litwin MS, Latini DM, Du Chane J et al. The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2005, 173(6): 1938-42.11. Eifler JB, Feng Z, Lin BM, Partin MT, Humphreys EB, Han M et al. An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011. BJU Int. 2013 Jan;111(1):22-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11324.x. Epub 2012 Jul 26.12. Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattiku Urology Institute experience. Urology 2002; 60(5):864-8.13. Fracalanza S, Ficarra V, Cavalleri S, Galfano A, Novara G, Mangano A, et al. Is robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy less invasive than retropubic radical prostatectomy? Results from a prospective, unrandomized, comparative study. BJU Int 2008; 101