Journals / Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology / 2008 / Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 1

Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial results of a prospective randomized comparison

Açık ve laparoskopik radikal prostatektomi: prospektif randomize karşılaştırmanın ilk sonuçları

Pages
92–99
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)

Overall, complication rates were similar.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:There is still an ongoing debate about the benefits of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) compared to the open retropubic radical prostatectomy (ORRP).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: Between November 2006 and May 2007, 36 consecutive men (mean age: 62.8+6.1 years, range: 52-76 years) with organ confined prostate cancer were prospectively randomized into 2 groups and underwent either LRP (n: 18) or ORRP (n: 18).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall, complication rates were similar.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2006 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Prostat neoplazmları · İleriye dönük çalışma · Karşılaştırmalı çalışma

Abstract

There is still an ongoing debate about the benefits of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) compared to the open retropubic radical prostatectomy (ORRP). We prospectively compared peri- operative findings and early post-operative outcomes of patients who were treated with either open or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Materials and Methods: Between November 2006 and May 2007, 36 consecutive men (mean age: 62.8+6.1 years, range: 52-76 years) with organ confined prostate cancer were prospectively randomized into 2 groups and underwent either LRP (n: 18) or ORRP (n: 18). Peri-operative data and early post-operative continence rates were compared. A validated visual analogue scale was used to assess pain on post-operative days 1, 3 and 7. Results of LRP and ORRP operations were compared using chi-square and Student&#8217;s t test. Results: Groups were similar with respect to mean age, PSA value and clinical stage. Mean operating time was significantly shorter in the ORRP group (p<0.01). Mean estimated blood loss was 620+110 cc in LRP group and 910+240 cc in ORRP group (p<0.01). Blood transfusion rates were 55.6% (n: 10) and 33.3% (n: 6) in ORRP and LRP groups, respectively (p<0.05). Overall, complication rates were similar. Open convertion was not indicated in any patient in LRP group, in which one patient experienced rectal injury, that was repaired laparoscopically. VAS scores were significantly (p<0.01) higher in the ORRP group. Median urethral catheterization time was 7 days following LRP and 14 days after ORRP (p<0.05). Positive surgical margin was evident in 11.1% (n: 2) and in 22.2% (n: 4) in LRP and ORRP groups, respectively (p: 0.2). Early continence at first postoperative month was achieved in 88.9% (n: 16) in LRP group and in 61.1% (n: 11) in ORRP group (p<0.05). Conclusion: Despite a longer operative time, which can be attributed to the initial phase of the learning curve, LRP is significantly associated with less post-operative pain, shorter convalescence, and higher early continence rates.

Özet

Laparoskopik radikal prostatektominin (LRP) açık retropubik radikal prostatektomiye (ARRP) göre üstünlükleri konusunda tartışmalar devam etmektedir. Çalışmamızda, organa sınırlı prostat kanserli hastalar, ileriye dönük randomize edildi ve LRP ve ARRP’in erken dönem sonuçları karşılaştırıldı. Kasım 2006 ile Mayıs 2007 tarihleri arasında, 36 ardışık organa sınırlı prostat kanserli hasta, prospektif olarak LRP (n: 18) ve ARRP (n: 18) yapılmak üzere iki eşit gruba ayrıldı. Hastaların ameliyat sırasındaki ve sonrasındaki bulguları karşılaştırıldı. Hastalara ameliyat sonrası 1., 3. ve 7. günde, görsel analog skala (GAS) uygulanarak hissettikleri ağrının seviyesi değerlendirildi. Ameliyat sonrası 1. ve 3. ayda kontinans işlevleri değerlendirildi. Her iki grup ortalama yaş, vücut-kitle indeksi, serum PSA değeri, Gleason skoru, prostat hacmi ve klinik evre açısından benzerdi (p>0.05). Ortalama ameliyat süresi ARRP grubunda daha kısaydı (p<0.05). Ortalama tahmini kan kaybı, LRP grubunda 620+110 cc, ARRP grubunda 910+240 cc idi (p<0.01). Kan transfüzyonu, LRP grubunda hastaların %33.3’üne (n: 5), ARRP grubunda ise %55.6’sında (n: 10) gerekti (p<0,05). Genel istenmeyen yan etki oranları benzerdi. LRP grubunda açığa geçiş gerekmedi ve rektum yaralanması gelişen bir hastada laparoskopik tamir yapıldı. GAS değerleri ARRP grubunda belirgin olarak daha yüksekti. Ortanca sondalı kalış süreleri LRP grubunda 7 (6-13) gün, ARRP grubunda 14 (9-21) gündü (p<0.05). Olağan gündelik işlemlerin yapılabildiği tam iyileşme süresi, LRP grubunda daha kısaydı (p<0.01). Cerrahi sınır, LRP grubundaki hastaların %11,1’inde, ARRP grubunda ise %22.2’sinde pozitifti (p: 0.2). LRP grubundaki hastaların %88,9’unda erken dönemde kontinans sağlanırken, bu oran ARRP grubunda %61.1’di (p<0.05). Öğrenme eğrimizin başında olmamız nedeniyle ameliyat süresinin daha uzun olmasına karşın; LRP, belirgin olarak daha az ağrı, daha kısa tam iyileşme süresi ve daha yüksek erken kontinans oranı gibi önemli üstünlükler sağlamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

TEFEKLİ, A., BİNBAY, M., AKÇAY, M., SARI, Ö., KABA, M., MÜSLÜMANOĞLU, A. Y. (2008). Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial results of a prospective randomized comparison. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 1, 92–99. https://ajindex.com/articles/328705

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Narain V, Cher ML and Wood DP: Prostate cancer di- agnosis, staging and survival. Cancer Metastasis Rev, 21: 17-23, 2002
  2. Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Baret E, et al: Laparos- copic radical prostatectomy: Technical and early oncolo- gical assessment of 40 operations. Eur Urol. 36: 14-20, 1999
  3. Rassweiler J, Sentker L, Seman O, et al: Heilbronn la- paroscopic radical prostatectomy. Technique and results after 100 cases. Eur Urol. 40: 54-64, 2001
  4. Erdoğru T, İshak Y, Kutlu Ö, Uçar E, Akkaya E, Baykara M: Laparoskopik radikal prostatektomi ile il sonuçlarımız. Türk Üroloji Dergisi 31: 547-554, 2005
  5. Bhayani SB, Pavlovich CP, Hsu TS, et al: Prospective comparison of short-term convalescence: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 61: 612-616, 2003
  6. Sobin LH and Wittekind CH (eds): TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours 6th edh. Wiley-Lisa: New York, 2002
  7. Walsh PC: Anatomic radical prostatectomy: Evolution of the surgical technique. J Urol, 160: 2418-2421, 1998
  8. Van Velthoven RF, Ahlering TE, Peltier A, et al: Technique for laparoscopic running urethrovesical anas- tomosis: The single knot method. Urology. 61: 699-703, 2003
  9. Webster TM, Herrell SD, Chang SS, et al: Robotic as- sisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus retropu- bic radical prostatectomy: A prospective assessment of postoperative pain. J Urol. 174: 912-916, 2005
  10. Ateş M, Teber D, Gözen AS, Tefekli A, Sugiono M, Rassweiler JJ: A new postoperative predictor of time to urinary continence after laparoscopic radical prostatecto- my: The urine loss ratio. Eur Urol. 52: 178-185, 2007
  11. Lepor H, Neider AM and Ferrandino MN: Intraopera- tive and postoperative complications of radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1000 cases. J Urol, 166: 1729-1732, 2001
  12. Dillioglugil O, Leibman BD, Leibman NS, et al: Risk factors for complications and morbidity after radical ret- ropubic prostatectomy. J Urol, 157: 1760, 1997
  13. Catalona WJ, Carvalhal GF, Mager DE, et al: Poten- cy, continence and complication rates in 1870 consecuti- ve radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol, 162: 433, 1999
  14. Hautmann RE, Sauter TW and Wenderoth UK: Radi- cal retropubic prostatectomy: Morbidity and urinary in- continence in 418 consecutive cases. Urology 43: 47, 1994
  15. Gaylis FD, Friedel WE, Armas OA: Radical retropubic prostatectomy outcomes at a community hospital. J Urol, 159: 167, 1998
  16. Horzek A, Sa