BJU international · 2011
Outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in men with previous transurethral resection of prostate.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Gupta Narmada P, Singh Prabhjot, Nayyar Rishi
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: • To critically analyze and compare surgical, oncological and functional outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in patients with and without previous transurethral resection of prostate (TURP).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: • The study comprised 158 cases of RARP for clinically localized prostate cancer, including 26 cases that had undergone previous TURP (Group A). • Surgical, oncological and functional (short- and intermediate-term) outcomes of Group A were compared with 132 cases without previous TURP (Group B).
RESULTS: • Post TURP patients were found to have significantly greater blood loss (494 vs 324 mL) and a need for bladder neck reconstruction (26.7% vs 9.7%) compared to the non-TURP group. • Surgical time (189 vs 166 min), conversion rate, margin positivity rate and biochemical recurrence rate were also higher. • Incontinence rates were higher both at 6 (14% vs 11.8%) and 12 (25% vs 8%) months follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: • RARP is feasible but challenging after TURP. It entails a longer operating time, greater operative difficulty and compromised oncological or continence outcomes. • These cases should be handled by an experienced robotic surgeon with the appropriate expertise.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: • The study comprised 158 cases of RARP for clinically localized prostate cancer, including 26 cases that had undergone previous TURP (Group A). • Surgical, oncological and functional (short- and intermediate-term) outcomes of Group A were compared with 132 cases without previous TURP (Group B).
RESULTS: • Post TURP patients were found to have significantly greater blood loss (494 vs 324 mL) and a need for bladder neck reconstruction (26.7% vs 9.7%) compared to the non-TURP group. • Surgical time (189 vs 166 min), conversion rate, margin positivity rate and biochemical recurrence rate were also higher. • Incontinence rates were higher both at 6 (14% vs 11.8%) and 12 (25% vs 8%) months follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: • RARP is feasible but challenging after TURP. It entails a longer operating time, greater operative difficulty and compromised oncological or continence outcomes. • These cases should be handled by an experienced robotic surgeon with the appropriate expertise.