Turkish journal of urology · 2019
Robotic-assisted perineal versus transperitoneal radical prostatectomy: A matched-pair analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Tuğcu Volkan, Akça Oktay, Şimşek Abdulmuttalip, Yiğitbaşı İsmail, Şahin Selçuk, Yenice Mustafa Gürkan, Taşçı Ali İhsan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: We compared the outcomes of robotic-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy (r-PRP) versus robotic-assisted transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between November 2016 and September 2017 in our center, 40 patients underwent r-PRP, and 40 patients underwent RARP. All patients also underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to exclude the cases with locally advanced disease. Patients with localized prostate cancer (C-T2N0M0) were included in the study. The exclusion criteria were contraindications for undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy; the Gleason score ≥4+3; extracapsular extension proven on biopsy or suspected on mpMRI; clinical stage ≥T2c; required pelvic lymph dissection according to Partin's normogram; previous radiation therapy; hormonal therapy; any previous prostatic, urethral, or bladder neck surgery; and preoperative urinary incontinence or erectile dysfunction. Patients were placed in the exaggerated lithotomy position with 15° Trendelenburg for r-PRP and 40° Trendelenburg for RARP.
RESULTS: The mean age for the r-PRP and RARP groups were 61.2 (46-73) and 62.2 (50-75) years, respectively. The mean body mass index was significantly higher in the r-PRP group (p=0.02). The mean procedure duration time was 169.4 (100-255) minutes for the r-PRP group and 173.1 (130-210) minutes for the RARP group. The mean console time and anastomosis time were significantly lower for the r-PRP group. The mean estimated blood loss was significantly lower for the r-PRP group (p=0.002). Immediate continence rates in the r-PRP and RARP groups following the urethral catheter removal were 42% and 35% (p=0.30), respectively. Continence rates increased to 94.2% in the r-PRP and 72% in RARP (p=0.001) group at the 6th month, and to 95% in the r-PRP and 85.2% in RARP (p=0.02) group at the 9th month follow-up period. According to the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5), the erectile function rates at the 3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-up in the r-PRP group were 44%, 66%, and 75%, respectively. The rates in the RARP group at the 3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-up were 25%, 42%, and 66% (p=0.001), respectively.
CONCLUSION: In our experience, r-PRP has acceptable morbidity, excellent surgical and pathological outcomes, and satisfactory oncologic and functional results compared to RARP.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between November 2016 and September 2017 in our center, 40 patients underwent r-PRP, and 40 patients underwent RARP. All patients also underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to exclude the cases with locally advanced disease. Patients with localized prostate cancer (C-T2N0M0) were included in the study. The exclusion criteria were contraindications for undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy; the Gleason score ≥4+3; extracapsular extension proven on biopsy or suspected on mpMRI; clinical stage ≥T2c; required pelvic lymph dissection according to Partin's normogram; previous radiation therapy; hormonal therapy; any previous prostatic, urethral, or bladder neck surgery; and preoperative urinary incontinence or erectile dysfunction. Patients were placed in the exaggerated lithotomy position with 15° Trendelenburg for r-PRP and 40° Trendelenburg for RARP.
RESULTS: The mean age for the r-PRP and RARP groups were 61.2 (46-73) and 62.2 (50-75) years, respectively. The mean body mass index was significantly higher in the r-PRP group (p=0.02). The mean procedure duration time was 169.4 (100-255) minutes for the r-PRP group and 173.1 (130-210) minutes for the RARP group. The mean console time and anastomosis time were significantly lower for the r-PRP group. The mean estimated blood loss was significantly lower for the r-PRP group (p=0.002). Immediate continence rates in the r-PRP and RARP groups following the urethral catheter removal were 42% and 35% (p=0.30), respectively. Continence rates increased to 94.2% in the r-PRP and 72% in RARP (p=0.001) group at the 6th month, and to 95% in the r-PRP and 85.2% in RARP (p=0.02) group at the 9th month follow-up period. According to the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5), the erectile function rates at the 3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-up in the r-PRP group were 44%, 66%, and 75%, respectively. The rates in the RARP group at the 3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-up were 25%, 42%, and 66% (p=0.001), respectively.
CONCLUSION: In our experience, r-PRP has acceptable morbidity, excellent surgical and pathological outcomes, and satisfactory oncologic and functional results compared to RARP.