Urology · 2008
Comparing lymphadenectomy during radical nephroureterectomy: open versus laparoscopic.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Busby J Erik, Brown Gordon A, Matin Surena F
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (LNU) is an accepted treatment for tumors of the ureter and renal pelvis, although the ability to perform a regional lymphadenectomy has been criticized. We compared the quality of lymphadenectomy with LNU with that involving open nephroureterectomy (ONU) to determine whether oncologic principles are maintained.
METHODS: We searched our institutional database for patients who had undergone ONU from 1990 to 2005. These were compared with a series of patients from January 2003 to April 2007 who underwent LNU. From each patient's medical records, we assessed the number of lymph nodes removed, the number of positive nodes removed, and the density of positive nodes. The differences between groups were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum statistical test.
RESULTS: We identified 106 patients who underwent ONU with lymphadenectomy and 28 who underwent LNU with lymphadenectomy. The median number of nodes removed, median number of positive nodes, and median density of positive nodes were, respectively, 3, 0, and 0 for the ONU group; and 6, 0, and 0, for the LNU group. There was a statistically significant difference between groups with respect to the number of nodes removed (P = 0.01) but not with respect to the number of positive nodes removed (P = 0.61) or the lymph node density (P = 0.42).
CONCLUSIONS: Offsetting the benefits of laparoscopy could be a flawed oncologic technique. We have demonstrated that lymphadenectomy, which is a potentially important component of nephroureterectomy, can be performed as well during LNU as it is with ONU when a dedicated effort is made.
METHODS: We searched our institutional database for patients who had undergone ONU from 1990 to 2005. These were compared with a series of patients from January 2003 to April 2007 who underwent LNU. From each patient's medical records, we assessed the number of lymph nodes removed, the number of positive nodes removed, and the density of positive nodes. The differences between groups were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum statistical test.
RESULTS: We identified 106 patients who underwent ONU with lymphadenectomy and 28 who underwent LNU with lymphadenectomy. The median number of nodes removed, median number of positive nodes, and median density of positive nodes were, respectively, 3, 0, and 0 for the ONU group; and 6, 0, and 0, for the LNU group. There was a statistically significant difference between groups with respect to the number of nodes removed (P = 0.01) but not with respect to the number of positive nodes removed (P = 0.61) or the lymph node density (P = 0.42).
CONCLUSIONS: Offsetting the benefits of laparoscopy could be a flawed oncologic technique. We have demonstrated that lymphadenectomy, which is a potentially important component of nephroureterectomy, can be performed as well during LNU as it is with ONU when a dedicated effort is made.