4.6 Article

Intra- and peri-operative outcomes comparing radical retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Results from a prospective, randomised, single-surgeon study

期刊

EUROPEAN UROLOGY
卷 50, 期 1, 页码 98-104

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.02.051

关键词

prostate cancer; laparoscopy; radical prostatectomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To prospectively compare intra- and peri-operative outcomes of open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) and laparoscopic prostatectomy (LRP) by a single surgeon. Patients and methods: One-hundred-twenty, consecutive, age-matched patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer were eligible for surgery. Sixty patients underwent RRP and 60, LRP. Intra- and peri-operative parameters, pathologic findings and early complications were recorded. A validated visual analogue scale was used to assess pain in the recovery room, 3 h after the operation and on post-operative days 1, 2 and 3. A cystogram was performed on post-operative day 5. Results: Operating time was significantly shorter in the RRP group versus the LRP group (mean +/- SD, 170 +/- 34.2 vs 235 +/- 49.9 min, p < 0.001). Blood loss was significantly less in the LRP group versus the RRP group (mean SD, 853.3 +/- 485 vs 257.3 +/- 177 ml, p < 0.001), but no patient in either group underwent early re-intervention for bleeding. The RRP group showed a trend for higher use of analgesia. A watertight anastomosis was shown at cystourethrography and the catheter removed in 86% and 66% of LRP and RRP patients, respectively. The overall percentage of post-operative complications and positive margins were comparable. Conclusion: Laparoscopic prostatectomy is an attractive alternative to open prostatectomy, offering the advantages of reduced blood loss and safe early catheter removal. Furthermore, the laparoscopic procedure proved to be safe oncologically. Long-term follow-up is required to compare functional results in terms of continence and potency. (c) 2006 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. 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

4.6
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