首页> 外文期刊>European review for medical and pharmacological sciences. >Open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: comparative analysis of operative and pathologic outcomes for three techniques with a single surgeon’s experience
【24h】

Open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: comparative analysis of operative and pathologic outcomes for three techniques with a single surgeon’s experience

机译:开放式,腹腔镜和机器人辅助的腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术:具有单一外科医生经验的三种技术的手术和病理结果的比较分析

获取原文
           

摘要

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of open (O-), laparoscopic (L-) and robot-assisted laparoscopic (RAL-) radical prostatectomy (RP) performed by the same surgeon. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From May 1999 to April 2012, 484 RPs were performed by a single surgeon. Patients’ data including age, body-mass index, serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) level, Gleason score of prostate biopsy and prostatectomy specimen, preoperative prostate and specimen volumes, clinical and pathologic stages, operation time, estimated blood loss (EBL), catheterization time, blood transfusion rate were recorded. Prospectively collected data was evaluated retrospectively by statistical analyses. RESULTS: Of 484 radical prostatectomies, ORP (50), LRP (308) and RALRP (79) done by the same surgeon were included into study. Mean ages were 63.8, 62.7 and 60.3 years for ORP, LRP and RALRP respectively. Operation times for ORP, LRP and RALRP were 255, 208 and 242 minutes. EBL and hospitalization time were 602, 526, 234 mL, and 9.1, 3.2, 3.2 days for ORP, LRP and RALRP, respectively. While a significant advantage was found for EBL and complication rates in RALRP and for operation time in LRP, significant disadvantages were found in terms of catheterization time, hospitalization time, decrease in hemoglobin and blood transfusion in ORP. However, preoperative prostate volume and serum PSA level, oncologic outcomes and positive surgical margins were nearly similar in all operative techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive techniques such as LRP and RALRP are promising techniques with comparable outcomes with ORP. Shorter catheterization time, less blood loss and fewer complication rates can be provided by RALRP.
机译:目的:比较同一位医生进行的开放(O-),腹腔镜(L-)和机器人辅助腹腔镜(RAL-)根治性前列腺切除术(RP)的结果。患者与方法:从1999年5月至2012年4月,由一名外科医生进行了484例RP。患者数据包括年龄,身体质量指数,血清前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)水平,前列腺穿刺活检和前列腺切除术标本的格里森评分,术前前列腺和标本量,临床和病理分期,手术时间,估计失血量(EBL),记录导尿时间,输血率。通过统计分析对前瞻性收集的数据进行回顾性评估。结果:在484例根治性前列腺切除术中,由同一位外科医生进行的ORP(50),LRP(308)和RALRP(79)被纳入研究。 ORP,LRP和RALRP的平均年龄分别为63.8、62.7和60.3岁。 ORP,LRP和RALRP的操作时间分别为255、208和242分钟。 ORP,LRP和RALRP的EBL和住院时间分别为602、526、234 mL和9.1、3.2、3.2天。虽然在RALRP的EBL和并发症发生率以及在LRP的手术时间都有明显的优势,但在导尿时间,住院时间,血红蛋白减少和ORP输血方面却发现了明显的劣势。但是,术前前列腺体积和血清PSA水平,肿瘤学结局和手术切缘阳性在所有手术技术中几乎相似。结论:诸如LRP和RALRP的微创技术是有希望的技术,其结果可与ORP媲美。 RALRP可缩短导管插入时间,减少失血量和减少并发症发生率。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号