Comparison of Health-Related Quality of Life Changes in Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic versus Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic review.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Sertac Yazici, Senol Tonyali
{"title":"Comparison of Health-Related Quality of Life Changes in Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic versus Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic review.","authors":"Sertac Yazici, Senol Tonyali","doi":"10.22037/uj.v20i.7707","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the effects of RALP and LRP on health-related QoL following radical prostatectomy, focusing on studies performed via validated QoL questionnaires measuring particularly general health-related QoL.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted using Web of Science, PubMed (MEDLINE) on 15 January 2023 with the following search terms solely or in combination: \"robotic radical prostatectomy\", \"laparoscopic radical prostatectomy,\" and \"quality of life\". After retrieving the titles and abstracts of selected articles, the full texts of related articles were screened.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After full-text evaluation, among 185 articles, 23 articles were found eligible for inclusion. Hoze et al. reported that the global health status at the 12th month of the surgery was almost the same in both groups according to EORTC- QLQ-C30 scores (76.3 in the RALRP group vs. 76.1 in the LRP group). Wang et al. reported a 75 point of EORTC-QOL-C30 global health status ten years after LRP. Wyler et al. found that the 1-3 month EORTC-QLQ-C30 global health score was significantly worser than the baseline score, 65.3±18.3 vs. 77.2±18.2; however, it returned to baseline in 13-24 months (77.7±16.8) even proceed baseline score in experienced hands at 49-58 months follow up, 78.2±17.8 vs. 85.3±15.5. The frequently used patient-reported quality of life questionnaire following RALRP was EORTC-QLQ.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both robotic-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy are valid treatment options to achieve a good quality of life following surgery. The intermediate and long-term results in regard to QoL are comparable between the two procedures. RALRP might be superior to LRP in terms of immediate health-related quality of life, which might contribute to early recovery of urinary function.</p>","PeriodicalId":23416,"journal":{"name":"Urology Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v20i.7707","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the effects of RALP and LRP on health-related QoL following radical prostatectomy, focusing on studies performed via validated QoL questionnaires measuring particularly general health-related QoL.

Material and methods: A systematic search was conducted using Web of Science, PubMed (MEDLINE) on 15 January 2023 with the following search terms solely or in combination: "robotic radical prostatectomy", "laparoscopic radical prostatectomy," and "quality of life". After retrieving the titles and abstracts of selected articles, the full texts of related articles were screened.

Results: After full-text evaluation, among 185 articles, 23 articles were found eligible for inclusion. Hoze et al. reported that the global health status at the 12th month of the surgery was almost the same in both groups according to EORTC- QLQ-C30 scores (76.3 in the RALRP group vs. 76.1 in the LRP group). Wang et al. reported a 75 point of EORTC-QOL-C30 global health status ten years after LRP. Wyler et al. found that the 1-3 month EORTC-QLQ-C30 global health score was significantly worser than the baseline score, 65.3±18.3 vs. 77.2±18.2; however, it returned to baseline in 13-24 months (77.7±16.8) even proceed baseline score in experienced hands at 49-58 months follow up, 78.2±17.8 vs. 85.3±15.5. The frequently used patient-reported quality of life questionnaire following RALRP was EORTC-QLQ.

Conclusion: Both robotic-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy are valid treatment options to achieve a good quality of life following surgery. The intermediate and long-term results in regard to QoL are comparable between the two procedures. RALRP might be superior to LRP in terms of immediate health-related quality of life, which might contribute to early recovery of urinary function.

癌症前列腺癌患者腹腔镜与机器人辅助腹腔镜前列腺根治术后健康相关生活质量变化的比较:系统综述。
目的:比较RALP和LRP对根治性前列腺切除术后健康相关生活质量的影响,重点是通过经验证的生活质量问卷进行的研究,特别是测量一般健康相关生活水平。材料和方法:使用Web of Science进行系统检索,PubMed(MEDLINE)于2023年1月15日发布,单独或组合以下搜索词:“机器人前列腺根治术”、“腹腔镜前列腺切除术”和“生活质量”。检索所选文章的标题和摘要后,对相关文章的全文进行筛选。结果:经过全文评估,185篇文章中有23篇符合入选条件。Hoze等人报道,根据EORTC-QLQ-C30评分,两组在手术第12个月的整体健康状况几乎相同(RALRP组为76.3,LRP组则为76.1)。王等人报告了LRP后10年EORTC-QOL-C30全球健康状况的75分。Wyler等人发现,1-3个月的EORTC-QLQ-C30全球健康评分明显低于基线评分,分别为65.3±18.3和77.2±18.2;然而,它在13-24个月时恢复到基线(77.7±16.8),甚至在49-58个月的随访中,经验丰富的手的基线得分为78.2±17.8比85.3±15.5。RALRP后经常使用的患者报告生活质量问卷是EORTC-QLQ。结论:机器人辅助和腹腔镜前列腺根治术都是实现手术后良好生活质量的有效治疗选择。两种手术在生活质量方面的中期和长期结果是可比较的。在与健康相关的即时生活质量方面,RALRP可能优于LRP,这可能有助于尿功能的早期恢复。
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
Urology Journal
Urology Journal UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
44
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: As the official journal of the Urology and Nephrology Research Center (UNRC) and the Iranian Urological Association (IUA), Urology Journal is a comprehensive digest of useful information on modern urology. Emphasis is on practical information that reflects the latest diagnostic and treatment techniques. Our objectives are to provide an exceptional source of current and clinically relevant research in the discipline of urology, to reflect the scientific work and progress of our colleagues, and to present the articles in a logical, timely, and concise format that meets the diverse needs of today’s urologist. Urology Journal publishes manuscripts on urology and kidney transplantation, all of which undergo extensive peer review by recognized authorities in the field prior to their acceptance for publication. Accordingly, original articles, case reports, and letters to editor are encouraged.
×
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