SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ege Tıp Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 61 - Sayı: 3

Comparison of early oncologic and functional results of open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Açık ve robot yardımlı laparoskopik radikal prostatektominin erken dönem onkolojik ve fonksiyonel sonuçları açısından karşılaştırılması

Serdar KALEMCİ
Kasım Emre ERGÜN
Tuncer BAHÇECİ
Fuat KIZILAY
Burak TURNA
Pages
403–410
Publication Date
2022-10-17
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)

At follow-up, anastomotic stricture and biochemical recurrence were observed to be less in the RARP group (3.9% vs. 29.9% p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: Radical prostatectomy (RP) has undergone a remarkable transformation from open surgery to minimally invasive surgery over the past two decades.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Methods: Our study included 537 patients who were diagnosed with prostate cancer and underwent RP between January 2009 and January 2014. (Open retropubic radical prostatectomy (ORRP)=387, robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP)=150).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:At follow-up, anastomotic stricture and biochemical recurrence were observed to be less in the RARP group (3.9% vs. 29.9% p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2009 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: Radical prostatectomy (RP) has undergone a remarkable transformation from open surgery to minimally invasive surgery over the past two decades. In our study, we aimed to compare patients who underwent open (ORRP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) for localized prostate cancer in terms of early oncological and functional outcomes. Material and Methods: Our study included 537 patients who were diagnosed with prostate cancer and underwent RP between January 2009 and January 2014. (Open retropubic radical prostatectomy (ORRP)=387, robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP)=150). Demographic data, perioperative and postoperative results of the patients were compared between the two groups. Results: The mean age of the patients was 62.9 (46-76) in the ORRP group and 61.1 (42-76) years in the RARP group. It was observed that the mean hospital stay, urethral catheterization time, and blood transfusion requirement were significantly shorter in the RARP group. Surgical margin positivity rates were 16.3% and 20% (p=0.412) for the ORRP and RARP groups, respectively, in those with pT2 stage, and 40.9% and 68.8% in the ORRP and RARP groups, respectively, in patients with pT3 stage (p= 0.05). The mean follow-up period was 30.6 (3-64) months in the ORRP group and 11.3 (1-24) months in the RARP group. At follow-up, anastomotic stricture and biochemical recurrence were observed to be less in the RARP group (3.9% vs. 29.9% p

Özet

Amaç: Radikal prostatektomi (RP), son yirmi yılda açık cerrahiden minimal invaziv cerrahiye kayda değer bir dönüşüm geçirdi. Çalışmamızda lokalize prostat kanseri nedeniyle açık ve robot yardımlı RP yapılan hastaları erken dönem onkolojik ve fonksiyonel sonuçları açısından karşılaştırılmayı amaçladık. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmamıza Ocak 2009 ile Ocak 2014 tarihleri arasında prostat kanseri tanısı alıp RP yapılan 537 hasta dâhil edildi. (Açık retropubik radikal prostatektomi (ARRP)=387, robot yardımlı laparoskopik radikal prostatektomi (RYRP)=150). Hastaların demografik verileri, perioperatif ve postoperatif sonuçları iki grup arasında karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Hastaların ortalama yaşı ARRP grubunda 62,9 (46-76), RYRP grubunda ise 61,1 (42-76) yıl idi. Ortalama hastanede kalış süresi, üretral kateterizasyon süresi ve kan transfüzyonu ihtiyacının RYRP grubunda anlamlı olarak daha kısa olduğu görüldü. Cerrahi sınır pozitifliği oranlarının pT2 evreye sahip olanlarda ARRP ve RYRP grubu için sırasıyla %16,3 ve %20 (p=0,412), pT3 evreye sahip olanlarda ise ARRP ve RYRP grubunda sırasıyla %40,9 ve %68,8 (p=0,05) olduğu görüldü. Ortalama takip süresi, ARRP grubunda 30,6 (3-64) ay, RYRP grubunda ise 11,3 (1-24) ay olarak hesaplandı. Takipte RYRP grubunda anastomoz darlığı ve biyokimyasal rekürrens gelişiminin daha az olduğu görüldü (%3,9 vs %29,9 p

🔖

Cite This Article

KALEMCİ, S., ERGÜN, K. E., BAHÇECİ, T., KIZILAY, F., TURNA, B. (2022). Comparison of early oncologic and functional results of open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Ege Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 61 - Sayı: 3, 403–410. https://ajindex.com/articles/496022

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics. 2020. CA Cancer J Clin 2020 Jan;70(1):7-30
  2. Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, et al. Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part I: Risk Stratification, Shared Decision Making, and Care Options. J Urol 2018; 199: 683-90
  3. 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: 431-52
  4. Mazzone E, Mistretta FA, Knipper S, et al. Contemporary national assessment of robot-assisted surgery rates and total hospital charges for major surgical uro-oncological procedures in the United States. J Endourol 2019; 33: 438–47
  5. Clavien PA, Strasberg SM. Severity grading of surgical complications. Ann Surg 2009; 250 (2):197-8
  6. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998; 280: 969-74
  7. Seikkula H, Syvanen K. T, Kurki S, et al. Role of ultrasensitive prostate-specific antigen in the follow-up of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 2015; 33: 16.e1-16.e7
  8. Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury S, Wein A. Incontinence. 2nd Consultation on Incontinence. United Kingdom: Health Publication; 2002
  9. Walsh PC, Lepor H, Eggleston JC. Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations. Prostate 1983; 4: 473–85
  10. Eastham J, Tokuda Y, Scardino P. Trends in radical prostatectomy. Intl J Urol 2009; 16: 151–60
  11. Smith JA Jr, Chan RC, Chang SS, et al. A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2007; 178 (6): 2385–90
  12. Atug F, Castle EP, Srivastav SK, Burgess SV, Thomas R, Davis R. Positive surgical margins in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: impact of learning curve on oncologic outcomes. Eur Urol 2006; 49 (5): 866-71
  13. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, et al. Vattikuti İnstitute Prostatectomy: comtemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol 2007; 57: 648-58
  14. Patel VR, Thaly R, Shah K. Robotic radical prostatectomy: outcomes of 500 cases. BJU Int 2007; 99: 1109-12
  15. Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic p