Comparison of oncological and functional outcomes of perineoscopic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

被引:0
作者
Yusuf Arikan
Mithat Eksi
Ali Ihsan Tasci
机构
[1] Mus State Hospital,Urology
[2] Bakirkoy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital,Department of Urology
来源
Updates in Surgery | 2023年 / 75卷
关键词
Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy; Perineoscopy; Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; Continence; Potency;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The aim of this study is to compare the functional, oncological, and complication outcomes of perineoscopic radical prostatectomy (PeRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) operations. Patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) between October 2018 and June 2020 for localized prostate cancer (N0, < T3) were retrospectively screened. After the exclusion criteria, 56 patients who underwent PeRP and 67 patients who underwent RARP remained in the study. Demographic, perioperative, and postoperative data were collected. In functional outcomes, continence and potency status were compared at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. The mean age of the patients was 61.3 ± 5.9 years in the PeRP group and 62.2 ± 5.7 years in the RARP group. No statistically significant differences were present between preoperative and postoperative values. Among the perioperative findings, the mean operation time was 90.4 ± 11.2 min for the PeRP group and 114.6 ± 14.7 min for the RARP group. The operation time was shorter in the PeRP group. The average hospital stay was 2 ± 0.6 days in the PeRP group and 2.3 ± 0.5 days in the RARP group. It was significantly shorter in the PeRP group. There is no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the oncological and functional results. PeRP is a surgical procedure safe in low-risk patients with medium-risk prostate cancer (PCa) who do not require lymph-node dissection. Moreover, PeRP minimizes the difficulties of perineal surgery.
引用
收藏
页码:1027 / 1035
页数:8
相关论文
共 175 条
[1]  
Rawla P(2019)Epidemiology of prostatecancer World J Oncol 10 63-89
[2]  
Coughlin GD(2018)Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: 24-month outcomes from a randomized controlled study Lancet Oncol 19 1051-1060
[3]  
Yaxley JW(2020)Radical prostatectomy or observation for clinically localized prostate cancer: extended follow-up of the prostate cancer intervention versus observation trial (PIVOT) Eur Urol 77 713-724
[4]  
Chambers SK(2005)Radical prostatectomy: long-term cancer control and recovery of sexual and urinary function ("trifecta") Urology 66 83-94
[5]  
Wilt TJ(2011)Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy Eur Urol 59 702-707
[6]  
Vo TN(2018)Comparison of retropubic, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: who is the winner? World J Urol 36 609-621
[7]  
Langsetmo L(2020)The impact of surgical margin status on prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis Clin Transl Oncol 22 2087-2096
[8]  
Dahm P(2017)Comparison of oncologic outcomes and complications according to surgical approach to radical prostatectomy: special focus on the perineal approach Clin Genitourin Cancer 15 e645-e652
[9]  
Wheeler T(2020)Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: a review of 95 cases BJU Int 125 573-578
[10]  
Aronson WJ(2003)Radical perineal prostatectomy: cost efficient, outcome effective, minimally invasive prostate cancer management Eur Urol 44 303-308