4.6 Article

Effect of bony pelvic dimensions measured by preoperative magnetic resonance imaging on performing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy

期刊

BJU INTERNATIONAL
卷 104, 期 5, 页码 664-668

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08624.x

关键词

prostate cancer; prostatectomy; robotics; pelvis; magnetic resonance imaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of bony pelvic dimensions measured by preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on performing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). PATIENTS AND METHODS In this exploratory study, we analysed the data of 141 patients who underwent RALP for clinically localized prostate cancer after undergoing MRI at our institution. Associations of various clinicopathological factors were analysed, including pelvic dimensions measured by preoperative MRI, with operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), surgical margin status, and postoperative urinary continence and erectile function. RESULTS For operative duration, no pelvic dimension had a significant association on univariate analysis, with only the newly developed variable of pelvic cavity index approaching significance (P = 0.071). Only prostate volume had a significant association with operative duration on multivariate analysis (P = 0.015). For EBL, no bony pelvic dimension had a significant association on univariate analysis, with only intertuberous distance and interspinous distance approaching significance (P = 0.087 and P = 0.072, respectively). Again, only prostate volume was significantly associated with EBL on univariate analysis (P = 0.045). No pelvic dimension had any significant effect on surgical margin status, recovery of urinary continence or erectile function at 6 months after RALP. CONCLUSION Bony pelvic dimensions may not be a significant factor contributing to the technical difficulty of RALP among Korean patients compared with other patient-related factors such as prostate volume.

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