首页> 外文期刊>Urology >Prospective comparison of short-term convalescence: laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy.
【24h】

Prospective comparison of short-term convalescence: laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy.

机译:短期康复的前瞻性比较:腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术与开放性根治性耻骨后前列腺切除术。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare prospectively the convalescence of patients after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) in a standardized clinical care pathway at a single institution by two surgeons of equal experience and training. METHODS: The study included all 60 patients undergoing LRP and RRP by two fellowship-trained surgeons in their first year of practice. The postoperative care of these patients was uniform and standardized. The medical records were reviewed and convalescence data obtained by an independent urologist and physician's assistant. RESULTS: Of the 60 patients, 24 underwent RRP and 36 underwent attempted LRP; 3 patients were converted from LRP to RRP. The differences in mean age, preoperative prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason score, in-hospital morphine equivalent requirement, time to oral intake, and hospital stay were not statistically significant between the LRP and RRP groups. The operating room time was significantly longer (5.8 +/- 1.2 hours versus 2.8 +/- 0.55 hours, P <0.0001) and the estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the LRP group (533 +/- 212 mL versus 1473 +/- 768 mL, P <0.0001) than in the RRP group. Pain medication use at home was significantly less in the LRP group (9 +/- 13 versus 17 +/- 15 oxycodone tablets, P <0.04), as was the time to complete convalescence (30 +/- 18 days versus 47 +/- 21 days, P <0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Although LRP took almost twice as long to complete as RRP in our initial clinical experience, the patients had a similar hospital course. LRP patients required less pain medication after discharge and had a shorter time to complete recovery than did RRP patients. Additional studies are needed to address long-term cancer control, potency, and continence outcomes to determine the precise role of LRP in the treatment of men with clinically localized prostate cancer.
机译:目的:在两个机构中,由两名具有相同经验和培训经验的医生在标准化的临床护理途径中,对腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术(LRP)和开放性根治性耻骨后前列腺切除术(RRP)后的患者恢复情况进行评估和比较。方法:该研究纳入了所有60名患者,他们都是在第一年的实践中由两名接受过研究金培训的外科医生接受LRP和RRP治疗的。这些患者的术后护理是统一和规范的。由独立的泌尿科医师和医师助理检查病历并获得康复数据。结果:60例患者中,有24例接受了RRP,有36例接受了LRP。 3例患者从LRP转换为RRP。 LRP和RRP组之间的平均年龄,术前前列腺特异性抗原水平,格里森评分,医院内吗啡当量需求量,口服时间和住院时间的差异在统计学上无统计学意义。手术室时间明显更长(5.8 +/- 1.2小时对2.8 +/- 0.55小时,P <0.0001),LRP组的估计失血量明显更低(533 +/- 212 mL对1473 +/- 768 mL,P <0.0001)高于RRP组。 LRP组在家使用止痛药的次数明显减少(9 +/- 13对比17 +/- 15羟考酮片,P <0.04),而完全恢复的时间也一样(30 +/- 18天vs 47 + / -21天,P <0.002)。结论:尽管在我们最初的临床经验中,LRP完成RRP所需的时间几乎是RRP的两倍,但患者的病程相似。与RRP患者相比,LRP患者出院后所需的止痛药更少,完成康复的时间更短。需要更多的研究来解决长期的癌症控制,效力和节制结果,以确定LRP在临床上局限性前列腺癌的治疗中的确切作用。

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