[ROBOT-ASSISTED RADICAL CYSTECTOMY AT HIROSHIMA CITY ASA HOSPITAL -COMPARISON WITH LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL CYSTECTOMY].

Q4 Medicine
Ryo Tasaka, Hideki Mochizuki, Hiroyuki Shikuma, Kohei Kobatake, Daiki Murata, Shinya Ohara, Masao Kato, Koji Mita
{"title":"[ROBOT-ASSISTED RADICAL CYSTECTOMY AT HIROSHIMA CITY ASA HOSPITAL -COMPARISON WITH LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL CYSTECTOMY].","authors":"Ryo Tasaka,&nbsp;Hideki Mochizuki,&nbsp;Hiroyuki Shikuma,&nbsp;Kohei Kobatake,&nbsp;Daiki Murata,&nbsp;Shinya Ohara,&nbsp;Masao Kato,&nbsp;Koji Mita","doi":"10.5980/jpnjurol.112.131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>(Objective) We compared the perioperative parameters of robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) and laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) to evaluate the utility of RARC. (Patients and methods) At Hiroshima City Asa Hospital, 25 patients underwent RARC from July 2018 to May 2020 (R group) and 79 patients underwent LRC from July 2012 to June 2018 (L group). We retrospectively compared the patient characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and pathological outcomes between the R group and the L group. (Results) Regarding the patient characteristics, the R group had significantly more neo-adjuvant chemotherapy than the L group (64.0% vs. 32.9%, P=0.009), but the other characteristics did not differ. Between the R group and the L group, there were no significant differences in the total operating time (R group = 400 minutes vs. L group = 421 minutes), estimated blood loss (R group = 228 ml vs. L group = 318 ml), or pathological outcomes. However, there were significantly less postoperative complications in the R group than in the L group (24.0% vs. 52.6%, P=0.020). (Conclusion) This study showed that there might be benefits to introducing RARC into medical centers that perform LRC.</p>","PeriodicalId":38850,"journal":{"name":"Japanese Journal of Urology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Japanese Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5980/jpnjurol.112.131","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

(Objective) We compared the perioperative parameters of robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) and laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) to evaluate the utility of RARC. (Patients and methods) At Hiroshima City Asa Hospital, 25 patients underwent RARC from July 2018 to May 2020 (R group) and 79 patients underwent LRC from July 2012 to June 2018 (L group). We retrospectively compared the patient characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and pathological outcomes between the R group and the L group. (Results) Regarding the patient characteristics, the R group had significantly more neo-adjuvant chemotherapy than the L group (64.0% vs. 32.9%, P=0.009), but the other characteristics did not differ. Between the R group and the L group, there were no significant differences in the total operating time (R group = 400 minutes vs. L group = 421 minutes), estimated blood loss (R group = 228 ml vs. L group = 318 ml), or pathological outcomes. However, there were significantly less postoperative complications in the R group than in the L group (24.0% vs. 52.6%, P=0.020). (Conclusion) This study showed that there might be benefits to introducing RARC into medical centers that perform LRC.

广岛asa医院机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术与腹腔镜根治性膀胱切除术的比较
(目的)比较机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术(RARC)和腹腔镜根治性膀胱切除术(LRC)的围手术期参数,评价RARC的实用性。(患者与方法)2018年7月至2020年5月,广岛市亚撒医院25例患者行RARC (R组);2012年7月至2018年6月,79例患者行LRC (L组)。我们回顾性比较了R组和L组的患者特征、围手术期结果和病理结果。(结果)在患者特征方面,R组新辅助化疗明显多于L组(64.0% vs. 32.9%, P=0.009),但其他特征无差异。在R组和L组之间,总手术时间(R组= 400 min vs L组= 421 min)、估计失血量(R组= 228 ml vs L组= 318 ml)和病理结果均无显著差异。R组术后并发症发生率明显低于L组(24.0% vs. 52.6%, P=0.020)。(结论)本研究表明,将RARC引入实施LRC的医疗中心可能会有好处。
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
Japanese Journal of Urology
Japanese Journal of Urology Medicine-Urology
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
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