Objective:To assess the effect of Hood's technique on urinary continence in patients undergoing single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (spRARP).Methods:The clinical data of 53 patients who underwent spRARP performed by a single surgeon in the First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University from June 2021 to October 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 25 patients in the spRARP+ Hood group and 28 patients in the spRARP group. There were no statistically significant differences between the spRARP+ Hood group and the spRARP group in terms of patients′ age [(70.28±5.98) years vs. (60.89±6.86) years old], body mass index[(24.64±2.85) kg/m 2 vs. (24.59±3.17) kg/m 2], prostate weight [70.00 (40.69, 102.25) g vs. 73.50 (49.13, 94.50) g], total prostate specific antigen[8.62 (4.56, 15.26) ng/ml vs. 12.68 (6.99, 19.24) ng/ml], Gleason score [8 (7, 8) vs. 8 (7, 8)], age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index (aCCI) [4 (3, 5) vs. 3 (3, 4)], and clinical stage [T 2a/T 2b/T 2c: 6/10/9 cases vs. 5/7/16 cases ] ( P>0.05). In the SpRARP + Hood group, the detrusor apron, tendon arch, pubic prostatic ligament, and dorsal vascular complex were completely preserved during the operation. In contrast, this was not the case for spRARP.Additionally, the incision size, bleeding volume, intraoperative blood transfusion volume, operation time, gastrointestinal function recovery time, total amount of drainage in the first three postoperative days, retention time of the drainage tube, postoperative hospitalization time, positive incision margins, recovery rate of urinary continence immediately after removal of the urinary catheter, and the recovery rate of urinary continence at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively were compared between the two groups. Results:All 53 surgeries were successfully completed. The differences in incision length [4.0 (3.5, 4.0) cm vs. 4.0 (4.0, 4.0) cm], intraoperative bleeding [50 (40, 100) ml vs. 100 (50, 100) ml], and intraoperative transfusion rate [4.0% (1/25) vs. 17.8% (5/28)] were not statistically significant between the spRARP+ Hood group and the spRARP group ( P>0.05), and the difference in operative time [205.0 (167.5, 240.0) min vs. 242.5 (185.0, 300.0) min] was statistically significant( P<0.05).The recovery time of gastrointestinal function in the spRARP+ Hood group vs. the spRARP group [1.0 (1.0, 1.5) d vs. 1.0 (1.0, 2.0) d], total amount of drainage in the first 3 d postoperatively [150.00 (72.50, 261.00) ml vs. 230.00 (115.00, 417.50) ml], duration of drain retention [5.0 ( 4.0, 5.0) d vs. 5.0 (4.0, 6.8) d], postoperative hospital stay [5.0 (4.0, 7.5) d vs. 5.0 (3.3, 7.8) d], and margin positivity rate [4.0% (1/25) vs. 3.6% (1/28)] were not statistically significant ( P>0.05). The postoperative Clavien-Dindo complication classification was grade I in both groups. The differences between the spRARP+ Hood group and the spRARP group in the rates of recovery of urinary continence immediately after the urinary catheter removal [56.0% (14/25) vs. 7.1% (2/28)] and one month after surgery [76.0% (19/25) vs. 28.5% (8/28)] were statistically significant ( P<0.05). The differences in the rates of recovery of urinary continence at 3 months after surgery [80.0% (20/25) vs. 67.8% (19/28)], at 6 months after surgery [88.0% (22/25) vs. 96.4% (27/28)], and biochemical recurrence at 6 months after surgery [4.0% (1/25) vs. 3.6% (1/28)] were not statistically significant ( P>0.05). Conclusions:The outcomes of spRARP+ Hood in the treatment of localized prostate cancer were comparable to those of spRARP. However, spRARP+ Hood has better urinary continence immediately after removal of the urinary catheter and 1 month postoperatively.

Objective:To assess the effect of Hood's technique on urinary continence in patients undergoing single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (spRARP).Methods:The clinical data of 53 patients who underwent spRARP performed by a single surgeon in the First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University from June 2021 to October 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 25 patients in the spRARP+ Hood group and 28 patients in the spRARP group. There were no statistically significant differences between the spRARP+ Hood group and the spRARP group in terms of patients′ age [(70.28±5.98) years vs. (60.89±6.86) years old], body mass index[(24.64±2.85) kg/m 2 vs. (24.59±3.17) kg/m 2], prostate weight [70.00 (40.69, 102.25) g vs. 73.50 (49.13, 94.50) g], total prostate specific antigen[8.62 (4.56, 15.26) ng/ml vs. 12.68 (6.99, 19.24) ng/ml], Gleason score [8 (7, 8) vs. 8 (7, 8)], age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index (aCCI) [4 (3, 5) vs. 3 (3, 4)], and clinical stage [T 2a/T 2b/T 2c: 6/10/9 cases vs. 5/7/16 cases ] ( P>0.05). In the SpRARP + Hood group, the detrusor apron, tendon arch, pubic prostatic ligament, and dorsal vascular complex were completely preserved during the operation. In contrast, this was not the case for spRARP.Additionally, the incision size, bleeding volume, intraoperative blood transfusion volume, operation time, gastrointestinal function recovery time, total amount of drainage in the first three postoperative days, retention time of the drainage tube, postoperative hospitalization time, positive incision margins, recovery rate of urinary continence immediately after removal of the urinary catheter, and the recovery rate of urinary continence at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively were compared between the two groups. Results:All 53 surgeries were successfully completed. The differences in incision length [4.0 (3.5, 4.0) cm vs. 4.0 (4.0, 4.0) cm], intraoperative bleeding [50 (40, 100) ml vs. 100 (50, 100) ml], and intraoperative transfusion rate [4.0% (1/25) vs. 17.8% (5/28)] were not statistically significant between the spRARP+ Hood group and the spRARP group ( P>0.05), and the difference in operative time [205.0 (167.5, 240.0) min vs. 242.5 (185.0, 300.0) min] was statistically significant( P<0.05).The recovery time of gastrointestinal function in the spRARP+ Hood group vs. the spRARP group [1.0 (1.0, 1.5) d vs. 1.0 (1.0, 2.0) d], total amount of drainage in the first 3 d postoperatively [150.00 (72.50, 261.00) ml vs. 230.00 (115.00, 417.50) ml], duration of drain retention [5.0 ( 4.0, 5.0) d vs. 5.0 (4.0, 6.8) d], postoperative hospital stay [5.0 (4.0, 7.5) d vs. 5.0 (3.3, 7.8) d], and margin positivity rate [4.0% (1/25) vs. 3.6% (1/28)] were not statistically significant ( P>0.05). The postoperative Clavien-Dindo complication classification was grade I in both groups. The differences between the spRARP+ Hood group and the spRARP group in the rates of recovery of urinary continence immediately after the urinary catheter removal [56.0% (14/25) vs. 7.1% (2/28)] and one month after surgery [76.0% (19/25) vs. 28.5% (8/28)] were statistically significant ( P<0.05). The differences in the rates of recovery of urinary continence at 3 months after surgery [80.0% (20/25) vs. 67.8% (19/28)], at 6 months after surgery [88.0% (22/25) vs. 96.4% (27/28)], and biochemical recurrence at 6 months after surgery [4.0% (1/25) vs. 3.6% (1/28)] were not statistically significant ( P>0.05). Conclusions:The outcomes of spRARP+ Hood in the treatment of localized prostate cancer were comparable to those of spRARP. However, spRARP+ Hood has better urinary continence immediately after removal of the urinary catheter and 1 month postoperatively.

Objective To compare a developed absorbable chitosan/collagen membrane (CCM) with a standard biodegradable collagen membrane for the treatment of implant dehiscence-type defect in dog model.Methods The right four mandibular premolars and the first molar were extracted in each of 10 beagle dogs.Four months later,acute buccal dehiscence-type defects were surgically created following implant site preparation in each dog.Using self-control,defects were randomly assigned to four different groups:CCM-1 (with the ratio of chitosan and collagen of 40∶1),CCM-2 (with the ratio of chitosan and collagen of 20∶1),Bio-Gide collagen membrane (BG collagen),control.The animals were sacrificed after 4 (3 animals),8 (3 animals) and 12 (4 animals) weeks of healing interval for histological observation and histomorphometrical analysis including defect length(DL),new bone height (NBH),bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and area of new bone fill (BA).Results Newly formed bone was observed in all the groups and became mature with time.At 8 weeks,increased mean NBH and BIC values were obtained for all the groups,the mean NBH values of the CCM-1,CCM-2 and BG groups[(1.1 0 ±0.11) ～ (1.48 ±0.07) mm] were significantly higher than that of the control [(0.74 ± 0.12)mm] (P ＜ 0.05).At 12 weeks,the membranes treated groups obtained more mean NBH,BIC and BA values compared with the control.The CCM-1 groups showed the highest mean NBH value [(1.91 ± 0.25)mm],which was significantly higher than the control [(1.20 ± 0.34) mm] (P ＜ 0.05).However,no statistically significant differences in BIC and BA were found between membrane groups and control and among the membranes treated groups.Conclusions The results of this study demonstrated that the developed CCM can enhance bone regeneration and obtaine similar amounts of newly formed bone compared with defects regenerated with a standard collagen membrane.

Objective: To study the microstructure of e-polytetra fluoroethylene (e-PTFE) membrane and chitin membrane and to observe the growth of osteoblasts on the membrane. Methods: Light microscope and scanning electronic microscope were used to study the microstructure of e-PTFE membrane and chitin membrane. Cell culture methods and cell counting were used to observe the growth of osteoblasts on the two kinds of membrane. Results: The chitin membrane showed a compact structure without any pore in it. There were many shallow dents with the diameter of 5-8 ?m on it's surface. However, in e-PTFE membrane many tiny lined cracks (1-5 ?m in width and 5-15 ?m in length) in elliptic structure were observed. The adhesion and proliferation of osteoblasts on the two kinds of membranes were both well. ALP measurement showed that there were no significant difference between each of the two membrane groups and the control. Conclusions: Both membranes have no negative effects on the growth of osteoblasts. Both membranes are biocompatibile and their microstructure is appropriate for guided bone regeneration materials.