Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: Initial Experience of 267 Cases

被引:0
|
作者
Islamoglu, Ekrem [1 ]
Aktas, Yasin [1 ]
Ari, Ozgur [1 ]
Anil, Hakan [1 ]
Yildiz, Ali [1 ]
Ates, Mutlu [1 ]
Savas, Murat [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hlth Sci, Antalya Training & Res Hosp, Clin Urol, Antalya, Turkey
来源
UROONKOLOJI BULTENI-BULLETIN OF UROONCOLOGY | 2019年 / 18卷 / 01期
关键词
Prostate cancer; robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy; outcomes; LYMPH-NODE DISSECTION; LEARNING-CURVE; CANCER;
D O I
10.4274/uob.galenos.2018.1109
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Objective: To present our experience of 267 consecutive patients treated with robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and assess the perioperative and postoperative outcomes. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 267 men who underwent RALP in our clinic between March 2015 and April 2018. Preoperative clinical data including age, serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), biopsy Gleason score, and number of positive cores were noted. Perioperative parameters such as operative time and intraoperative complications were recorded. Postoperative parameters including hematocrit change, length of hospital stay, and catheter removal date were noted. Pathological outcomes included pathological Gleason score; positive surgical margin (PSM) status; extracapsular, lymphovascular, perineural, and seminal vesicle invasion; and lymph node positivity. The Clavien-Dindo system was used to classify surgical complications. Results: The mean age of the patients was 64.2 +/- 6.4 years and the median PSA was 8.27 ng/dL. The mean operative time was 196.4 +/- 59.4 min and median hematocrit decrease was 3.9%. The overall PSM rate was 21.34% and this rate increased significantly with final pathological stage from 12.97% for pT2 to 35.48% for pT3 (p<0.05). Over a mean follow-up time of 19 months, biochemical recurrence occured in 29 patients (9.7%) and a total of 35 patients (22%) required additional treatment. A total of 29 patients (10.86%) had complications and 1 patient required surgical intervention in the first 48 hours after surgery. The median postoperative hospital stay was 3 days and median time to urethral catheter removal was 10 days. Conclusion: Our initial experience with RALP is promising. Oncological outcomes were satisfactory, with patients benefiting from the advantages of the minimally invasive surgical approach.
引用
收藏
页码:14 / 17
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Cost-effectiveness analysis of arterial catheter insertion on robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy
    Valdez, Rogelio
    Drevik, Johnathan
    Prunty, Megan
    Isali, Ilaha
    Sindhani, Mohit
    Ponsky, Lee
    Bigalli, Alberto Castro
    Chen, David
    Mishra, Kirtishri
    Kutikov, Alexander
    Calaway, Adam
    Bukavina, Laura
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2023, 30 (02)
  • [32] Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: an Australian single-surgeon series
    Papachristos, Alexander
    Basto, Marnique
    te Marvelde, Luc
    Moon, Daniel
    ANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2015, 85 (03) : 154 - 158
  • [33] Comparison of Postoperative Infection between Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy and Open Radical Prostatectomy
    Shigemura, Katsumi
    Tanaka, Kazushi
    Yamamichi, Fukashi
    Muramaki, Mototsugu
    Arakawa, Soichi
    Miyake, Hideaki
    Fujisawa, Masato
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2014, 92 (01) : 15 - 19
  • [34] Outcomes assessment in men undergoing open retropubic radical prostatectomy, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy
    Kowalczyk, Keith J.
    Yu, Hua-yin
    Ulmer, William
    Williams, Stephen B.
    Hu, Jim C.
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2012, 30 (01) : 85 - 89
  • [35] The Australian laparoscopic non robotic radical prostatectomy experience - analysis of 2943 cases (USANZ supplement)
    Louie-Johnsun, Mark William
    Handmer, Marcus M.
    Calopedos, Ross John Spero
    Chabert, Charles
    Cohen, Ronald J.
    Gianduzzo, Troy R. J.
    Kearns, Paul A.
    Moon, Daniel A.
    Ooi, Jason
    Shannon, Tom
    Sofield, David
    Tan, Andrew H. H.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2016, 118 : 43 - 48
  • [36] ROBOTIC-ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: THE TEACHING
    Azael Martinez-Alonso, Ivan
    Alberto Valdez-Flores, Rafael
    Padron-Lucio, Sanjuan
    Campos Salcedo, Jose Gado
    Gutierrez-Aceves, Jorge
    Cathelineau, Xavier
    Sanchez-Salas, Rafael
    ARCHIVOS ESPANOLES DE UROLOGIA, 2019, 72 (03): : 239 - 246
  • [37] Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy and Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: Likelihood of Positive Surgical Margin(s)
    Williams, Stephen B.
    Chen, Ming-Hui
    D'Amico, Anthony V.
    Weinberg, Aaron C.
    Kacker, Ravi
    Hirsch, Michelle S.
    Richie, Jerome P.
    Hu, Jim C.
    UROLOGY, 2010, 76 (05) : 1097 - 1101
  • [38] Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in 2010
    Singh, Iqbal
    Hemal, Ashok K.
    EXPERT REVIEW OF ANTICANCER THERAPY, 2010, 10 (05) : 671 - 682
  • [39] Longitudinal urgency outcomes following robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy
    Kennady, Emmett H. H.
    Zillioux, Jacqueline
    Ali, Marwan
    Hutchison, Dylan
    Farhi, Jacques
    DeNovio, Anthony
    Barquin, David
    Rapp, David E. E.
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2023, 41 (07) : 1885 - 1889
  • [40] Systematic review of the ophthalmic complications of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy
    Rabinowitz, Joshua
    Kinnear, Ned
    O'Callaghan, Michael
    Hennessey, Derek
    Shafi, Fariha
    Fuller, Andrew
    Ibrahim, Mohamed
    Lane, Timothy
    Adshead, James
    Vasdev, Nikhil
    JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2024, 18 (01)