Clinical study of 3D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches.

IF 1.5 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
American journal of clinical and experimental urology Pub Date : 2023-12-15 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01
Jie Fu, Wenhao Luo, Yonghui Ding, Xiao Liu, Wenge Fang, Xuezhen Yang
{"title":"Clinical study of 3D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches.","authors":"Jie Fu, Wenhao Luo, Yonghui Ding, Xiao Liu, Wenge Fang, Xuezhen Yang","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Comparison of the clinical effectiveness and safety of three-dimensional transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (3D TLRP) versus 3D extraperitoneal LRP (3D ELRP) for prostate cancer.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>To retrospectively analyze the clinical and regular postoperative follow-up data of patients who underwent 3D LRP performed by the same attending surgeon at the Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical College between 2017 and 2022. A total of 82 patients who met the criteria were included. They were divided into 3D TLRP (n = 39) and 3D ELRP groups (n = 43) according to the surgical approach. The preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no statistically significant differences in preoperative characteristics between the two groups. There were also no statistically significant differences between the 3D TLRP and 3D ELRP groups in terms of intraoperative blood transfusion rate (12.82% vs. 2.33%), positive lymph node rate (11.11% vs. 2.38%), positive surgical margin rate (12.82% vs. 6.98%), pathological Gleason score, postoperative clinical stage, perioperative complication rate (10.26% vs. 4.65%), immediate urinary control rate (56.41% vs. 58.14%), 3-month postoperative urinary control rate (76.92% vs. 74.42%), 6-month postoperative urinary control rate (87.18% vs. 83.72%), 6-month postoperative biochemical recurrence rate (7.69% vs. 9.30%), or 6-month postoperative sexual function recovery rate (2.56% vs. 2.33%) (P > 0.05). Compared with the 3D ELRP group, the 3D TLRP group had a longer operative time (232.36 ± 48.52 min vs. 212.07 ± 41.76 min), more estimated blood loss (150.000 [100.0, 200.0] vs. 100.000 [100.0, 125.0]), longer recovery of gastrointestinal function (2.72 ± 0.89 vs. 2.26 ± 0.88), longer duration of drainage tube retention (5.69 ± 1.79 vs. 4.28 ± 2.68), and longer hospitalization time (12.54 ± 4.07 vs. 10.88 ± 2.97), with statistical significance (P < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>3D TLRP and 3D ELRP have similar oncologic and functional outcomes. Clinically, physicians can choose a reasonable procedure according to the patient's specific situation and their own surgical experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":7438,"journal":{"name":"American journal of clinical and experimental urology","volume":"11 6","pages":"549-558"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10749385/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of clinical and experimental urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Comparison of the clinical effectiveness and safety of three-dimensional transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (3D TLRP) versus 3D extraperitoneal LRP (3D ELRP) for prostate cancer.

Materials and methods: To retrospectively analyze the clinical and regular postoperative follow-up data of patients who underwent 3D LRP performed by the same attending surgeon at the Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical College between 2017 and 2022. A total of 82 patients who met the criteria were included. They were divided into 3D TLRP (n = 39) and 3D ELRP groups (n = 43) according to the surgical approach. The preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were compared.

Results: There were no statistically significant differences in preoperative characteristics between the two groups. There were also no statistically significant differences between the 3D TLRP and 3D ELRP groups in terms of intraoperative blood transfusion rate (12.82% vs. 2.33%), positive lymph node rate (11.11% vs. 2.38%), positive surgical margin rate (12.82% vs. 6.98%), pathological Gleason score, postoperative clinical stage, perioperative complication rate (10.26% vs. 4.65%), immediate urinary control rate (56.41% vs. 58.14%), 3-month postoperative urinary control rate (76.92% vs. 74.42%), 6-month postoperative urinary control rate (87.18% vs. 83.72%), 6-month postoperative biochemical recurrence rate (7.69% vs. 9.30%), or 6-month postoperative sexual function recovery rate (2.56% vs. 2.33%) (P > 0.05). Compared with the 3D ELRP group, the 3D TLRP group had a longer operative time (232.36 ± 48.52 min vs. 212.07 ± 41.76 min), more estimated blood loss (150.000 [100.0, 200.0] vs. 100.000 [100.0, 125.0]), longer recovery of gastrointestinal function (2.72 ± 0.89 vs. 2.26 ± 0.88), longer duration of drainage tube retention (5.69 ± 1.79 vs. 4.28 ± 2.68), and longer hospitalization time (12.54 ± 4.07 vs. 10.88 ± 2.97), with statistical significance (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: 3D TLRP and 3D ELRP have similar oncologic and functional outcomes. Clinically, physicians can choose a reasonable procedure according to the patient's specific situation and their own surgical experience.

经腹膜和腹膜外3D腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术的临床研究。
目的:比较三维经腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术(3D TLRP)与三维腹膜外前列腺癌根治术(3D ELRP)治疗前列腺癌的临床有效性和安全性:回顾性分析2017年至2022年间在蚌埠医学院附属医院由同一主治医师实施3D LRP的患者的临床及术后定期随访资料。共纳入符合标准的 82 例患者。根据手术方式将他们分为三维TLRP组(39人)和三维ELRP组(43人)。对术前、术中和术后数据进行了比较:结果:两组患者的术前特征差异无统计学意义。三维 TLRP 组和三维 ELRP 组在术中输血率(12.82% vs. 2.33%)、淋巴结阳性率(11.11% vs. 2.38%)、手术切缘阳性率(12.82% vs. 6.98%)、病理 Gleason 评分、术后临床分期、围手术期并发症发生率(10.4.65%)、即刻尿量控制率(56.41% vs. 58.14%)、术后 3 个月尿量控制率(76.92% vs. 74.42%)、术后 6 个月尿量控制率(87.18% vs. 83.72%)、术后 6 个月生化复发率(7.69% vs. 9.30%)或术后 6 个月性功能恢复率(2.56% vs. 2.33%)(P > 0.05)。与三维 ELRP 组相比,三维 TLRP 组的手术时间更长(232.36 ± 48.52 分钟 vs. 212.07 ± 41.76 分钟),估计失血量更多(150.000 [100.0, 200.0] vs. 100.000 [100.0, 125.0]),胃肠功能恢复时间更长(2.72 ± 0.89 vs. 2.26±0.88)、引流管留置时间更长(5.69±1.79 vs. 4.28±2.68)、住院时间更长(12.54±4.07 vs. 10.88±2.97),差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:三维 TLRP 和三维 ELRP 具有相似的肿瘤学和功能预后。临床上,医生可根据患者的具体情况和自身的手术经验选择合理的手术方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
8.30%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信