Dergiler / Üroonkoloji Bülteni / 2021 / Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 3

Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Versus Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy: Comparison of Functional and Oncological Outcomes, A Single-Center Experience

Sayfa
153–157
Yayın Tarihi
2022-11-06
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)

In our opinion, the surgeon’s experience is more effective than the chosen technique.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:on perioperative functional and oncological outcomes.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Materials and Methods: This single-center retrospective study analyzed data of 443 patients who had undergone radical prostatectomy (RP) with localized prostate cancer.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:In our opinion, the surgeon’s experience is more effective than the chosen technique.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

on perioperative functional and oncological outcomes. Materials and Methods: This single-center retrospective study analyzed data of 443 patients who had undergone radical prostatectomy (RP) with localized prostate cancer. Surgical and clinicopathologic data, oncological and functional outcomes, and complications were compared between RRP and RARP groups. The comparison was made by the Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square test, and t-test for qualitative and quantitative variables, as appropriate. Log rank test was used to determine the biochemical recurrence-free survival of both surgical methods. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to estimate survival rates. Results: The RRP and RARP groups included 231 and 212 patients, respectively. Blood loss, indwelling catheter duration, and hospitalization rates were low in the RARP group. Although the continence rates were better in the RARP group at 3 months, they were comparable at 12 months. In both groups, erection sufficient for sexual intercourse was comparable at 3 and 12 months. The mean lymph node yield was higher in the RRP group than in the RARP group. On median 28-month follow-up, no difference was found in the oncological results. Conclusion: Although the oncological and functional results of RRP and RARP are comparable, RARP is a more minimally invasive procedure. In our opinion, the surgeon’s experience is more effective than the chosen technique.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Baltacı, S., Akpınar, Ç., Süer, E., İbiş, M. A., Kubilay, E., Türkölmez, K. (2022). Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Versus Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy: Comparison of Functional and Oncological Outcomes, A Single-Center Experience. Üroonkoloji Bülteni, Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 3, 153–157. https://ajindex.com/articles/645745

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (14)

  1. Young HH. XV. Cancer of the prostate: a clinical, pathological and post-operative analysis of 111 cases. Ann Surg 1909;50:1144
  2. Millin T. Retropubic prostatectomy a new extravesical technique: report on 20 cases. Lancet 1945;246:693-696
  3. Walsh PC, Lepor H, Eggleston JC. Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations. Prostate 1983;4:473-485
  4. Abbou C C, Hoznek A, Salomon L, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot. J Urol 2001;165:1964-1966
  5. MOUL JW. Prostate specific antigen only progression of prostate cancer. J Urol 2000;163:1632-1642
  6. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205
  7. Budäus L, Isbarn H, Eichelberg C, et al. Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: multiplicative interaction between surgical margin status and pathological stage. J Urol 2010;184:1341-1346
  8. Suardi N, Dell’Oglio P, Gallina A, et al. Evaluation of positive surgical margins in patients undergoing robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy according to preoperative risk groups. Urol Oncol 2016;34:57.e1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.08.019
  9. Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S, et al. Systematic review and metaanalysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:382-404
  10. Coughlin GD, Yaxley JW, Chambers SK, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: 24-month outcomes from a randomised controlled study. Lancet Oncol 2018;19:1051-1060
  11. Abdollah F, Gandaglia G, Suardi N, et al. More extensive pelvic lymph node dissection improves survival in patients with node-positive prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2015;67:212-219
  12. Abdollah F, Suardi N, Gallina A, et al. Extended pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer: a 20-year audit in a single center. Ann Oncol 2013; 24:1459-1466
  13. Li R, Petros FG, Kukreja JB, et al. Current technique and results for extended pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Invest Clin Urol 2016;57:S155-164
  14. Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, 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