4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Transition from pure laparoscopic to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: A single surgeon institutional evolution

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.07.002

关键词

Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy; Laparoscopy; Robotic surgery; Laparoscopic prostatectomy; Robotic prostatectomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To review a single surgeon experience of transitioning to a robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy program (RALP) with prior pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) experience. Materials and methods: A retrospective review of surgical results from a single surgeon performing LRP transitioning to RALP was performed. Two hundred five patients undergoing RALP by a single, fellowship-trained, urologic oncologist were analyzed and compared with 45 patients undergoing LRP by the same surgeon. Operative, pathologic, and functional outcomes were evaluated. Validated questionnaires, including the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), were utilized for assessing urinary and sexual parameters. Results: Preoperative parameters (age, PSA, Gleason score) were similar in both RALP and LRP groups. Operative time (190 vs. 299 minutes), estimated blood loss (253 vs. 299 ml), and length of stay (1.6 vs. 2.6 days) were reduced in RALP vs. LRP. Although not statistically significant, there was a trend toward fewer transfusions with RALP (2.0% vs. 4.4%) as well as a lower positive margin rate in organ-confined (pT2) disease (9.8%, RALP vs. 20%, LRP). Continence at 12 months was 94% following RALP as opposed to 82% after LRP. In preoperatively potent men undergoing bilateral nerve sparing procedures, RALP conferred 81% potency at 12 months as opposed to only 62% following LRP. Conclusions: The transition from LRP to RALP, in concert with an institutional commitment to a successful robotic surgery program, has yielded superior operative, oncologic, and functional results. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据