Urology · 2008
Morbidity of retropubic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in renal transplant recipients: multicenter study from Renal Transplantation Committee of French Urological Association.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание 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.
Kleinclauss François M, Neuzillet Yann, Tillou Xavier, Terrier Nicolas, Guichard Guillaume, Petit Jacques, Lechevallier Eric, Renal Transplantation Committee of French Urological Association
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the morbidity and surgical complications of retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) in renal transplant recipients (RTRs) and compare these results with the observed morbidity in a control group of nontransplanted patients.
METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study and reviewed the charts and records of 20 RTRs who had undergone RRP for localized prostate cancer at four French renal transplant centers belonging to the Renal Transplantation Committee of the French Urological Association from April 1996 to April 2007. A total of 40 patients who had undergone RRP at the same centers, by the same surgeons, were analyzed as the case-control population.
RESULTS: The mean operating time (163 +/- 41 vs 160 +/- 66 minutes), blood loss (516 +/- 279 vs 566 +/- 449 mL), transfusion rate (20% vs 22.5%), and hospital stay (11.9 +/- 5.44 vs 9.45 +/- 2.8 days) were similar in the RTR and case-control populations. No graft loss or graft injury was reported in the RTRs, except for two ureteral injuries that were immediately repaired during RRP. No decrease in the kidney graft function was observed after RRP. The rate of medical complication (deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, urinary tract infection) was similar in both groups, except for the rate of bacterial systemic infection, which was significantly greater in the RTRs than in the controls (15% vs 2.5%, P = .01).
CONCLUSIONS: In our study, RRP was a safe procedure to treat localized prostate cancer in RTRs. RRP resulted in the same morbidity in RTRs as in the case-control population.
METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study and reviewed the charts and records of 20 RTRs who had undergone RRP for localized prostate cancer at four French renal transplant centers belonging to the Renal Transplantation Committee of the French Urological Association from April 1996 to April 2007. A total of 40 patients who had undergone RRP at the same centers, by the same surgeons, were analyzed as the case-control population.
RESULTS: The mean operating time (163 +/- 41 vs 160 +/- 66 minutes), blood loss (516 +/- 279 vs 566 +/- 449 mL), transfusion rate (20% vs 22.5%), and hospital stay (11.9 +/- 5.44 vs 9.45 +/- 2.8 days) were similar in the RTR and case-control populations. No graft loss or graft injury was reported in the RTRs, except for two ureteral injuries that were immediately repaired during RRP. No decrease in the kidney graft function was observed after RRP. The rate of medical complication (deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, urinary tract infection) was similar in both groups, except for the rate of bacterial systemic infection, which was significantly greater in the RTRs than in the controls (15% vs 2.5%, P = .01).
CONCLUSIONS: In our study, RRP was a safe procedure to treat localized prostate cancer in RTRs. RRP resulted in the same morbidity in RTRs as in the case-control population.