3D versus 2D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for the treatment of prostate cancer.
- Author:
Bin XU
;
Ning LIU
;
Hua JIANG
;
Shu-qiu CHEN
;
Yu YANG
;
Xiao-wen ZHANG
;
Chao SUN
;
Li-jie ZHANG
;
Jing LIU
;
Guo-zhu SHA
;
Wei-dong ZHU
;
Ming CHEN
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH: Blood Loss, Surgical; Body Mass Index; Drainage; Humans; Laparoscopy; adverse effects; methods; Length of Stay; Male; Neoplasm Grading; Operative Time; Prostatectomy; adverse effects; methods; Prostatic Neoplasms; pathology; surgery; Recovery of Function; Retrospective Studies; Urinary Incontinence; etiology
- From: National Journal of Andrology 2015;21(10):904-907
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVETo compare the outcomes and complications of 3D versus 2D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy ( LRP) in the treatment of prostate cancer.
METHODSWe retrospectively reviewed 18 cases of prostate cancer treated by 3D LRP and another 32 by 2D LRP. We compared the general data, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage time and hospital stay, Gleason scores, and incidence of complications between the two groups of patients.
RESULTSAll the operations were successful and none was transferred to open surgery. The two groups of patients were similar in terms of age, body mass index, Gleason scores, and clinical stages. However, compared with the 2D LRP group, the 3D LRP group showed significantly shorter operation time ([180.2 ± 69.1] vs [118.3 ± 55.1] min, P < 0.01), less blood loss ([236.5 ± 60.6] vs [89.1 ± 35.2] ml, P < 0.01), less postoperative drainage time ([7.1 ± 1.1] vs [5.3 ± 2.1] d, P < 0.01), shorter postoperative hospital stay ([20.2 ± 5.5] vs [14.4 ± 7.2] d, P < 0.01), and lower incidence of perioperative complications (3.1% vs 0, P < 0.01). The incisal margin was pathologically negative in both groups and urinary incontinence was found in neither at 6 months after surgery (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION3D LRP, with its advantages of shorter operative time, faster recovery, and better outcomes than 2D LRP in the treatment of prostate cancer, deserves general application in lower-level hospitals.