4.4 Article

Matched Comparison of Robotic vs Laparoscopic Nephroureterectomy: An Initial Experience

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 83, 期 2, 页码 345-349

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.07.079

关键词

-

资金

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
  2. Urology Care Foundation/Astellas Rising Star in Urology Research Award
  3. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To compare our initial robotic-assisted nephroureterectomy (RAN) experience with a well-established practice of performing laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (LN) to treat upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). METHODS We reviewed our prospectively maintained minimally invasive surgery database. Patients who underwent RAN from April 2009 to December 2011 were matched by pathologic tumor stage and age (+/- 10 years) to those who underwent LN. RESULTS Twenty-two matched pairs were evaluated. Mean operative time (298 vs 251 minutes) and estimated blood loss (EBL, 380 vs 233 mL) were significantly higher for RAN, with a greater need for transfusion in this group. Complication rates were similar. The RAN group trended toward more frequent lymph node dissection and greater median node count when lymph node dissection was performed (59% vs 27% [P = .07] and 5.5 vs 1.0 [P = .13]). After a median follow-up of 10 months for RAN and 15 months for LN, no significant difference was seen in the rate of bladder (36% vs 37%) or distant (32% vs 23%) recurrence, with similar median time to any recurrence (9 months vs 4 months, P = .32). CONCLUSION RAN was associated with higher operative time and blood loss likely because of more frequent use of node dissection, robot repositioning, and technical inexperience. Lymph node dissection was more frequently performed with RAN, which reflects surgeon practice patterns. When a lymph node dissection was performed, the median node count was greater with RAN. Our initial experience with RAN suggests that this is an acceptable approach for the management of UTUC. (C) 2014 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