机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术的中期肿瘤学结果评估:在随机对照队列中比较 Retzius Sparing 和标准方法。

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Ghassan A Barayan, Sami E Majdalany, Mohit Butaney, Deepansh Dalela, James Peabody, Firas Abdolla, Mani Menon, Wooju Jeong
{"title":"机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术的中期肿瘤学结果评估:在随机对照队列中比较 Retzius Sparing 和标准方法。","authors":"Ghassan A Barayan, Sami E Majdalany, Mohit Butaney, Deepansh Dalela, James Peabody, Firas Abdolla, Mani Menon, Wooju Jeong","doi":"10.1089/end.2023.0514","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Retzius-sparing prostatectomy was promoted with the early continence result. The long-term oncologic outcome is still unknown. In this study, we aimed to compare the intermediate-term oncologic outcomes of these two approaches in patients' cohort who were treated as part of a randomized controlled trial. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A total of 120 patients were previously randomized equally to receive Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) <i>vs</i> standard robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (S-RARP) between January 2015 and April 2016. Baseline, surgical, and pathologic characteristics as well as oncologic outcomes were assessed. The analysis was done based on the treatment received. <b><i>Result:</i></b> Sixty-three patients underwent S-RARP, whereas 57 patients underwent RS-RARP. There was no statistically significant difference in the baseline nor surgical characteristics. The median follow-up was 71.24 (interquartile range: 59.75-75.75) months. There were more pathologic T3 diseases in RS-RARP. There was no significant difference in the positive margin status nor in the biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate among both groups. After S-RARP and RS-RARP, 6 and 10 patients had BCR, and the 5 years BCR-free survival was 91% and 85%, respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.21). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> In this cohort, there was no difference in BCR in the patients who received either technique. Further multi-institutional studies with a larger sample size and longer follow-up are required.</p>","PeriodicalId":15723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of endourology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intermediate-Term Oncologic Outcome Assessment for Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Comparing Retzius-Sparing with Standard Approach in a Randomized Control Cohort.\",\"authors\":\"Ghassan A Barayan, Sami E Majdalany, Mohit Butaney, Deepansh Dalela, James Peabody, Firas Abdolla, Mani Menon, Wooju Jeong\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/end.2023.0514\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Retzius-sparing prostatectomy was promoted with the early continence result. The long-term oncologic outcome is still unknown. In this study, we aimed to compare the intermediate-term oncologic outcomes of these two approaches in patients' cohort who were treated as part of a randomized controlled trial. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A total of 120 patients were previously randomized equally to receive Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) <i>vs</i> standard robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (S-RARP) between January 2015 and April 2016. Baseline, surgical, and pathologic characteristics as well as oncologic outcomes were assessed. The analysis was done based on the treatment received. <b><i>Result:</i></b> Sixty-three patients underwent S-RARP, whereas 57 patients underwent RS-RARP. There was no statistically significant difference in the baseline nor surgical characteristics. The median follow-up was 71.24 (interquartile range: 59.75-75.75) months. There were more pathologic T3 diseases in RS-RARP. There was no significant difference in the positive margin status nor in the biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate among both groups. After S-RARP and RS-RARP, 6 and 10 patients had BCR, and the 5 years BCR-free survival was 91% and 85%, respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.21). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> In this cohort, there was no difference in BCR in the patients who received either technique. Further multi-institutional studies with a larger sample size and longer follow-up are required.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15723,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of endourology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of endourology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2023.0514\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of endourology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2023.0514","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介前列腺切除术(Retzius sparing prostatectomy)因其早期疗效而得到推广。但其长期肿瘤学结果仍是未知数。在本研究中,我们旨在比较这两种方法在随机对照试验中的中期肿瘤治疗效果:在2015年1月至2016年4月期间,共有120名患者被随机均等地选择接受雷氏疏通术(RS-RARP)与标准机器人辅助腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术(S-RARP)。对基线、手术和病理特征以及肿瘤学结果进行了评估。结果:63名患者接受了腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术(S-RARP):63名患者接受了S-RARP,57名患者接受了RS-RARP。结果:63 名患者接受了 S-RARP,57 名患者接受了 RS-RARP,两者的基线和手术特征在统计学上没有明显差异。随访中位数为 71.24(IQR 59.75 - 75.75)。RS-RARP中病理T3疾病较多。两组患者的边缘阳性率和生化复发率无明显差异。S-RARP和RS-RARP术后,分别有6例和10例患者出现生化复发,5年无生化复发生存率分别为91%和85%。(P=0.21)结论:在这组患者中,接受两种技术的患者在生化复发率方面没有差异。需要进一步开展样本量更大、随访时间更长的多机构研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Intermediate-Term Oncologic Outcome Assessment for Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Comparing Retzius-Sparing with Standard Approach in a Randomized Control Cohort.

Introduction: Retzius-sparing prostatectomy was promoted with the early continence result. The long-term oncologic outcome is still unknown. In this study, we aimed to compare the intermediate-term oncologic outcomes of these two approaches in patients' cohort who were treated as part of a randomized controlled trial. Methods: A total of 120 patients were previously randomized equally to receive Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) vs standard robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (S-RARP) between January 2015 and April 2016. Baseline, surgical, and pathologic characteristics as well as oncologic outcomes were assessed. The analysis was done based on the treatment received. Result: Sixty-three patients underwent S-RARP, whereas 57 patients underwent RS-RARP. There was no statistically significant difference in the baseline nor surgical characteristics. The median follow-up was 71.24 (interquartile range: 59.75-75.75) months. There were more pathologic T3 diseases in RS-RARP. There was no significant difference in the positive margin status nor in the biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate among both groups. After S-RARP and RS-RARP, 6 and 10 patients had BCR, and the 5 years BCR-free survival was 91% and 85%, respectively (p = 0.21). Conclusion: In this cohort, there was no difference in BCR in the patients who received either technique. Further multi-institutional studies with a larger sample size and longer follow-up are required.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of endourology
Journal of endourology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
14.80%
发文量
254
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Endourology, JE Case Reports, and Videourology are the leading peer-reviewed journal, case reports publication, and innovative videojournal companion covering all aspects of minimally invasive urology research, applications, and clinical outcomes. The leading journal of minimally invasive urology for over 30 years, Journal of Endourology is the essential publication for practicing surgeons who want to keep up with the latest surgical technologies in endoscopic, laparoscopic, robotic, and image-guided procedures as they apply to benign and malignant diseases of the genitourinary tract. This flagship journal includes the companion videojournal Videourology™ with every subscription. While Journal of Endourology remains focused on publishing rigorously peer reviewed articles, Videourology accepts original videos containing material that has not been reported elsewhere, except in the form of an abstract or a conference presentation. Journal of Endourology coverage includes: The latest laparoscopic, robotic, endoscopic, and image-guided techniques for treating both benign and malignant conditions Pioneering research articles Controversial cases in endourology Techniques in endourology with accompanying videos Reviews and epochs in endourology Endourology survey section of endourology relevant manuscripts published in other journals.
×
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