A comparative study between Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and conventional robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1000-6702.2018.07.008
- VernacularTitle:保留Retzius间隙与传统机器人辅根治性前列腺切除术的疗效对比分析
- Author:
Haoxin MA
1
;
Xuefeng QIU
;
Linfeng XU
;
Weidong GAN
;
Gutian ZHANG
;
Xiaogong LI
;
Hongqian GUO
Author Information
1. 210008,南京大学医学院附属鼓楼医院泌尿外科
- Keywords:
Prostatic cancer;
Radical prostatectomy;
Robot;
Retzius space;
Continence
- From:
Chinese Journal of Urology
2018;39(7):509-514
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the postoperative outcomes and early continence rate between conventional robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) and Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RSRARP).Methods The date from 50 patients who underwent RSRARP and 122 patients who underwent conventional RARP between 2016 September to 2017 included study.Ninety-two patients (forty-six patients in RARP group and forty-six patients in RSRARP group) were collected by propensity-score matching which were performed using eight preoperative variables.Preoperative data of patients in RSRARP group [patients age (67.1 ± 5.7) years,BMI (24.6 ± 2.7) kg/m2,tPSA 10.7 ng/ml (0-40.7 ng/ml),Gleason score 7 points (6-9 points),prostate volume 31.9 ml (10.0-95.4 ml),ECOG score 0 points (0-1 points),urinary domain of EPIC 94.8 points (63.9-100 points),clinical stage from T1cN0 M0 to T3a N0 M0] and conventional RARP group [patients age (67.2 ± 6.7) years,BMI (25.2 ± 3.1) kg/m2,tPSA 10.7 ng/ml (0-40.7 ng/ml),Gleason score 7 points (6-9 points),prostate volume 36.8 ml (8.9-81.0 ml),ECOG score 0 points (0-1 points),urinary domain of EPIC 95.8 points (63.9-100.0 points),clinical stage from T1c N0Mo to T3a N0M0] had no significant differences.We reviewed console time,estimated blood loss,the rate of leakage,complications,average daily drainage,pathological result,continence,urinary domain of EPIC one month,two months and three months after operation.Results All 92 cases were successfully performed robotically.Mean operation time was significantly more in RARP group than in RSRARP group [(223.9 ±48.9) min vs.(198.91 ±34.2)min,P ＜ 0.05)].There was no significant difference between the postoperative data of patients in RSRARP group [estimated blood loss 200 ml (50-1 200 ml),average daily drainage 82.5 ml (11.7-571.0 ml),the rate of leakage 6％,Clavien-Dindo grade Ⅰ (9％),Clavien-Dindo grade Ⅱ (4％),pathological stage pT1 (2％),pT2 (52％),pT3 (46％)] and RARP group [estimated blood loss 200 ml (100-1 200 ml),average daily drainage 102.9 ml (23.3-534.7 ml),the rate of leakage 4％,Clavien-Dindo grade Ⅰ (9％),Clavien-Dindo grade Ⅱ (2％),pathological stage pT1 (0),pT2 (46％),pT3 (54％)] (P ＞ 0.05).Early continence rate one week and one month after surgery was significantly higher in RSRARP group than in RARP group (78％ vs.35％,91％ vs.79％,P＜0.05).Urinary domain of EPIC one month and two months after surgery was significantly more in RSRARP group than in RARP group [(91.4±8.3) vs.(84.6±10.9),(95.0±7.5) vs.(91.6±7.8),P＜0.05].There was no significant difference in the rate of positive surgical margin between RSRARP group and RARP group (22％ vs.17％,P ＞ 0.05).Conclusions RSRARP were time-saving,safe and effective for the surgical treatment of localized prostate cancer.It seemed to yield a better outcome regarding early return to urinary continence postoperatively.
