Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India · 2011
Preliminary safety and efficacy results with robotic high-intensity focused ultrasound : A single center Indian experience.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mishra Shashikant, Sharma Rajan, Garg Chandra Prakash, Muthu V, Ganpule Arvind, Sabnis Ravindra B, Desai Mahesh R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There are no Indian data of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). Being an alternative, still experimental modality, reporting short-term safety outcome is paramount.
AIMS: This study was aimed at to assess the safety and short-term outcome in patients with prostate cancer treated by HIFU.
SETTINGS AND DESIGN: A retrospective study of case records of 30 patients undergoing HIFU between January 2008 to September 2010 was designed and conducted.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The procedural safety was analyzed at 3 months. Follow-up consisted of 3 monthly prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and transrectal biopsy if indicated. All the patients had a minimum follow-up of 6 months.
RESULTS: A mean prostate volume of 26.9 ± 8.5 cm(3) was treated in a mean time of 115 ± 37.4 min. There was no intraoperative complication. The postoperative pain visual analogue score at day 0 was 2.1 ± 1.9 and at day 1 was 0.4 ± 0.8 on a scale of 1-10. Mean duration of perurethral catheter removal was 3.9 days. The complications after treatment were: LUTS in seven patients, stress incontinence in two, stricture in two, and symptomatic urinary tract infection in five. Average follow-up duration was 10.4 months (range, 6-20 months). Mean time to obtain PSA nadir was 6 ± 3 months with a median PSA nadir value of 0.3 ng/ml. Two patients had positive prostatic biopsy in the localized (high risk) group.
CONCLUSIONS: HIFU was safe in carcinoma prostate patients. The short-term results were efficacious in localized disease. The low complication rates and favorable functional outcome support the planning of further larger studies.
AIMS: This study was aimed at to assess the safety and short-term outcome in patients with prostate cancer treated by HIFU.
SETTINGS AND DESIGN: A retrospective study of case records of 30 patients undergoing HIFU between January 2008 to September 2010 was designed and conducted.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The procedural safety was analyzed at 3 months. Follow-up consisted of 3 monthly prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and transrectal biopsy if indicated. All the patients had a minimum follow-up of 6 months.
RESULTS: A mean prostate volume of 26.9 ± 8.5 cm(3) was treated in a mean time of 115 ± 37.4 min. There was no intraoperative complication. The postoperative pain visual analogue score at day 0 was 2.1 ± 1.9 and at day 1 was 0.4 ± 0.8 on a scale of 1-10. Mean duration of perurethral catheter removal was 3.9 days. The complications after treatment were: LUTS in seven patients, stress incontinence in two, stricture in two, and symptomatic urinary tract infection in five. Average follow-up duration was 10.4 months (range, 6-20 months). Mean time to obtain PSA nadir was 6 ± 3 months with a median PSA nadir value of 0.3 ng/ml. Two patients had positive prostatic biopsy in the localized (high risk) group.
CONCLUSIONS: HIFU was safe in carcinoma prostate patients. The short-term results were efficacious in localized disease. The low complication rates and favorable functional outcome support the planning of further larger studies.