Lymphocele after extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A propensity score-matching study

被引:37
|
作者
Lee, Joo Yong [1 ]
Diaz, Richilda Red [1 ]
Cho, Kang Su [1 ]
Yu, Ho Song [2 ]
Chung, Jae Seung [3 ]
Ham, Won Sik [1 ]
Choi, Young Deuk [1 ,4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Yonsei Univ, Coll Med, Urol Sci Inst, Severance Hosp,Dept Urol, Seoul 120752, South Korea
[2] Chonnam Natl Univ, Sch Med, Dept Urol, Kwangju, South Korea
[3] Inje Univ, Coll Med, Dept Urol, Pusan, South Korea
[4] Yonsei Univ, Coll Med, Severance Hosp, Clin Trial Ctr Med Devices, Seoul 120752, South Korea
[5] Yonsei Univ, Coll Med, Severance Hosp, Robot & Minimal Invas Surg Ctr, Seoul 120752, South Korea
关键词
lymphocele; prostatectomy; prostatic neoplasms; robotics; EXTENDED PELVIC LYMPHADENECTOMY; NODE DISSECTION; RETROPUBIC PROSTATECTOMY; LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY; CANCER CONTROL; OUTCOMES; COMPLICATIONS; METASTASIS;
D O I
10.1111/iju.12144
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
ObjectivesTo investigate the incidence of lymphocele and determine the risk factors for postoperative lymphocele after extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy by using propensity score-matching. MethodsA total of 483 patients underwent extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer between January 2009 and August 2011. Of these, 200 patients underwent pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. All patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography postoperatively to detect lymphocele after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Propensity scores for an established control group were calculated for each patient using multivariate logistic regression based on the following covariates: age, body mass index, preoperative prostate-specific antigen level, prostate volume calculated by transrectal ultrasound, biopsy Gleason sum and clinical tumor stage. ResultsLymphocele was identified in 41 patients (20.5%). There were no statistical differences in variables used in propensity score-matching. Operation time, estimated blood loss, catheterization and surgical margin positivity did not show differences between the two groups. Seminal vesicle invasion (P=0.015) and tumor volume (P=0.042) between the two groups were significantly different. In the multivariate logistic regression model, extracapsular extension (P=0.017, odds ratio 4.231), seminal vesicle invasion (P=0.028, odds ratio 2.643) and the number of positive lymph nodes (P=0.041, odds ratio 3.532) were independent risk factors for lymphocele development after extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection. ConclusionsLymphocele might preferentially develop in cases with seminal vesicle invasion and large tumor volume. Additionally, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and the number of positive lymph nodes are independent risk factors for postoperative lymphocele after extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
引用
收藏
页码:1169 / 1176
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Comparison of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Open Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Seo, Hyun-Ju
    Lee, Na Rae
    Son, Soo Kyung
    Kim, Dae Keun
    Rha, Koon Ho
    Lee, Seon Heui
    YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2016, 57 (05) : 1165 - 1177
  • [32] Overcoming the challenges of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
    Goldstraw, M. A.
    Challacombe, B. J.
    Patil, K.
    Amoroso, P.
    Dasgupta, P.
    Kirby, R. S.
    PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES, 2012, 15 (01) : 1 - 7
  • [33] Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Perioperative Outcomes and Complications After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy
    Novara, Giacomo
    Ficarra, Vincenzo
    Rosen, Raymond C.
    Artibani, Walter
    Costello, Anthony
    Eastham, James A.
    Graefen, Markus
    Guazzoni, Giorgio
    Shariat, Shahrokh F.
    Stolzenburg, Jens-Uwe
    Van Poppel, Hendrik
    Zattoni, Filiberto
    Montorsi, Francesco
    Mottrie, Alexandre
    Wilson, Timothy G.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2012, 62 (03) : 431 - 452
  • [34] Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: a review of 95 cases
    Tugcu, Volkan
    Eksi, Mithat
    Sahin, Selcuk
    Colakoglu, Yunus
    Simsek, Abdulmuttalip
    Evren, Ismail
    Ihsan Tasci, Ali
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2020, 125 (04) : 573 - 578
  • [35] Retzius-sparing Robotic Radical Prostatectomy for Surgeons in the Learning Curve: A Propensity Score-matching Analysis
    Olivero, Alberto
    Galfano, Antonio
    Piccinelli, Mattia
    Secco, Silvia
    Di Trapani, Dario
    Petralia, Giovanni
    Strada, Elena
    Barbieri, Michele
    Napoli, Giancarlo
    Bocciardi, Aldo Massimo
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, 2021, 7 (04): : 772 - 778
  • [36] Robot-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy by an Extraperitoneal Approach
    Stolzenburg, Jens-Uwe
    Kallidonis, Panagiotis
    Kyriazis, Iason
    Kotsiris, Dimitrios
    Ntasiotis, Panteleimon
    Liatsikos, Evangelos N.
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2018, 32 : S39 - S43
  • [37] Predictors of Early Continence after Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy
    Yamada, Yuta
    Fujimura, Tetsuya
    Fukuhara, Hiroshi
    Sugihara, Toru
    Nakagawa, Tohru
    Kume, Haruki
    Igawa, Yasuhiko
    Homma, Yukio
    LUTS-LOWER URINARY TRACT SYMPTOMS, 2018, 10 (03) : 287 - 291
  • [38] Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: tips, tricks and pitfalls
    Mottrie, A.
    De Naeyer, G.
    Schatteman, P.
    Frumenzio, E.
    Rossanese, M.
    Ficarra, V.
    MINERVA UROLOGICA E NEFROLOGICA, 2012, 64 (02) : 89 - 96
  • [39] Examination of Necessity for Pelvic Drain Placement After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy
    Iwamoto, Hiroaki
    Kadono, Yoshifumi
    Nakagawa, Ryunosuke
    Makino, Tomoyuki
    Kadomoto, Suguru
    Yaegashi, Hiroshi
    Iijima, Masashi
    Kawaguchi, Shohei
    Nohara, Takahiro
    Shigehara, Kazuyoshi
    Izumi, Kouji
    Mizokami, Atsushi
    IN VIVO, 2021, 35 (05): : 2895 - 2899
  • [40] Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: advances since 2005
    Su, Li-Ming
    CURRENT OPINION IN UROLOGY, 2010, 20 (02) : 130 - 135