4.4 Article

Feasibility and Outcomes of Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer in Older Patients

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 77, 期 5, 页码 1111-1114

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.07.510

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES To report our maturing experience with robotic radical cystectomy as applied to an older patient population with regard to perioperative measures and pathologic outcomes. A robotic approach to radical cystectomy for bladder cancer have recently been described, but its application in an older patient population, which is often the case in bladder cancer and cystectomy, has not yet been assessed. METHODS A total of 119 patients underwent robotic cystectomy and extracorporeal urinary diversion at our institution from January 2006 through October 2009 for clinically localized bladder cancer. Owing to the patient selection early in the present series, the first 20 cases were excluded. The clinical characteristics, operative outcomes, and pathologic results of the consecutive cases were categorized by age (younger, <70 years vs older, age >= 70 years). RESULTS The outcomes of the 61 younger and 38 older patients, including 7 patients >80 years old, were assessed. The younger versus older patients had a lower American Society of Anesthesiologists score (2.6 vs 3.0; P < .001), greater body mass index (28.2 vs 26.1; P = .008), and longer operating room time (4.8 vs 4.4 hours; P = .015). No differences were observed between the 2 groups in blood loss, time to discharge, or complication rate. Also, no significant differences were found in the surgical pathologic findings, including the organ-confined rate (62% vs 71%) and lymph node yield (19.5 vs 18.1). CONCLUSIONS Older patients do not appear to have any significant differences or compromises with regard to the perioperative and pathologic outcomes after robotic radical cystectomy. Thus, robotic radical cystectomy appears to be an appropriate surgical option for older patients. UROLOGY 77: 1111-1115, 2011. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc.

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