Dergiler / Turkish Journal of Urology / 2019 / Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 6

Comparison of surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer

Sayfa
410–417
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Robotic prostatectomy has a shorter operative time, length of hospitalization, catheterization time, and lower early and late complication rates

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: To compare the oncological and functional outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Material and methods: We compared patients who underwent the RARP (n=778) and LRP (n=48) tech - niques for prostate cancer between January 2008 and July 2017 in our clinic.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Robotic prostatectomy has a shorter operative time, length of hospitalization, catheterization time, and lower early and late complication rates
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2008 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Objective: To compare the oncological and functional outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). Material and methods: We compared patients who underwent the RARP (n=778) and LRP (n=48) tech - niques for prostate cancer between January 2008 and July 2017 in our clinic. Patient demographics, preoperative and postoperative data, pathologic evaluation, continence, and potency rates were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Results: The preoperative and demographic data of the patients we included in our study were similar. The mean operation time estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, and catheterization time were significantly shorter in the RARP group. The statistical analysis was in favor of robotic prostatectomy in the terms of the mean length of hospitalization, catheterization time, and early (<30 days) and intermedi- ate (31-90 days) complications. Positive surgical margins and biochemical recurrence rates, and recovery of continence and erectile function, were similar in both groups. Conclusion: RARP and LRP in organ-confined prostate cancer are safe and effective methods. Robotic prostatectomy has a shorter operative time, length of hospitalization, catheterization time, and lower early and late complication rates

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

İNKAYA, A., TAHRA, A., SOBAY, R., KUMCU, A., KÜÇÜK, E. V., BOYLU, U. (2019). Comparison of surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer. Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 6, 410–417. https://ajindex.com/articles/417621

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (2)

  1. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative in- tent. Eur Urol 2017;71:618-29. [CrossRef] 2. Miller KD, Siegel RL, Lin CC, Mariotto AB, Kramer JL, Rowland JH, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:271-89. [CrossRef] 3. Zorlu F, Zorlu R, Divrik RT, Eser S, Yorukoglu K. Prostate cancer incidence in Turkey: an epidemiological study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014;15:9125-30. [CrossRef] 4. Noone AM, Howlader N, Krapcho M, Miller D, Brest A, Yu M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2015,
  2. National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/ csr/1975_2015/. Accessed 26 August 2018 5. Scosyrev E, Messing J, Noyes K, Veazie P, Messing E. Surveil- lance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program and popu- lation-based research in urologic oncology: an overview. Uro Urol Oncol 2012;30:126-3. [CrossRef] 6. Faiena I, Dombrovskiy VY, Modi PK, Patel N, Patel R, Salmasi AH, et al. Regional cost variations of robot-assisted radical prosta- tectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy. Clin Genito- urin Cancer 2015;13:447-52. [CrossRef] 7. Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, Capitanio U, Gallina A, Suardi N, et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol 2012;61:480-7. [CrossRef] 8. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65:87-108.[CrossRef] 9. Abboudi H, Khan MS, Guru KA, Froghi S, Win G, Van Poppel H, et al. Learning curves for urological procedures: a systematic review. BJU Int 2014;114:617-29. [CrossRef] 10. Bijlani A, Hebert AE, Davitian M, May H, Speers M, Leung R, et al. A multidimensional analysis of prostate surgery costs in the United States: robotic-assisted versus retropubic radical prostatec- tomy. Value Health 2016;19:391-403. [CrossRef] 11. Bianco FJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Radical prostatectomy: long- term cancer control and recovery of sexual and urinary function (“trifecta”). Urology 2005;66:83-94. [CrossRef] 12. Albertsen PC, Moore DF, Shih W, Lin Y, Li H, Lu-Yao GL. Im- pact of comorbidity on survival among men with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:1335-41. [CrossRef] 13. Kur