| Journal: | International braz j urol |
| Database: | PERIÓDICA |
| System number: | 000434748 |
| ISSN: | 1677-5538 |
| Authors: | Qi, Feng1 Wang, Shangqian1 Xu, Haoxiang1 Gao, Yiren1 Cheng, Gong1 Hua, Lixin1 |
| Institutions: | 1Nanjing Medical University, The First Affiliated Hospital, Nanjing, Jiangsu. China |
| Year: | 2019 |
| Season: | Jul-Ago |
| Volumen: | 45 |
| Number: | 4 |
| Country: | Brasil |
| Language: | Inglés |
| Document type: | Artículo |
| Approach: | Analítico, descriptivo |
| English abstract | Purpose To compare perioperative and pathological results in different approaches of robotic or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Materials and Methods We retrospectively reviewed 206 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (PC) from June 2016 to October 2017 in the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University. A total of 132 cases underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RLRP) including 54 patients on transperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (Tp-RLRP) and 78 on extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (Ep-RLRP). Meanwhile, 74 patients performed with extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (Ep-LPR) were also included. Perioperative and pathological data were compared among these groups. Results All operations were completed without conversion. There was no significant difference in basic and pathological characteristics of patients between each two groups. In Tp-RLRP vs. Ep-RLRP: Significant differences were found in the comparison in total operation time [235.98 ± 59.16 vs. 180.45 ± 50.27 min, P = 0.00], estimated blood loss (EBL) [399.07 ± 519.57 vs. 254.49 ± 308.05 mL, P = 0.0473], postoperative pelvic drainage time [5.37 ± 2.33 vs. 4.24 ± 3.08 d, P = 0.0237] and postoperative length of stay [8.15 ± 3.30 vs. 6.49 ± 3.49 d, P = 0.0068] while no significant differences were detected in other variables. In Ep-RLRP vs. Ep-LPR: Longer total operation time was observed in Ep-RLRP when compared to Ep-LPR [180.45 ± 50.27 vs. 143.80 ± 33.13 min, P = 0.000]. No significant differences were observed in other variables. Conclusion In RLRP, Ep-RLRP was proved a safe and effective approach based on the perioperative results compared to Tp-RLRP. Ep-RLRP and Ep-LPR provides equivalent perioperative and pathological outcomes |
| Disciplines: | Medicina |
| Keyword: | Urología, Oncología, Cirugía, Neoplasias, Próstata, Prostatectomía radical, Cirugía robótica, Laparoscopia |
| Keyword: | Urology, Oncology, Surgery, Neoplasms, Prostate, Radical prostatectomy, Robotic surgery, Laparoscopy |
| Full text: | Texto completo (Ver HTML) Texto completo (Ver PDF) |
