阴茎癌部分切除术与全阴茎切除术的疗效比较:关于人口统计学和术后并发症的回顾性队列研究。

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
David A Velasquez, Allison Liu, Senthooran Kalidoss, Clinton Yeaman, Darren Bryk, Judy N Fustok, Thomas M Shelton, Hasan Alhameedi, Nalin Payakachat, Mohamed Kamel, Braian R Ledesma, Mahmoud I Khalil, Ryan Smith, Omer Raheem
{"title":"阴茎癌部分切除术与全阴茎切除术的疗效比较:关于人口统计学和术后并发症的回顾性队列研究。","authors":"David A Velasquez, Allison Liu, Senthooran Kalidoss, Clinton Yeaman, Darren Bryk, Judy N Fustok, Thomas M Shelton, Hasan Alhameedi, Nalin Payakachat, Mohamed Kamel, Braian R Ledesma, Mahmoud I Khalil, Ryan Smith, Omer Raheem","doi":"10.1038/s41443-024-00935-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When feasible from an oncologic standpoint, partial penectomy (PP) is often preferred to total penectomy (TP) for penile cancer treatment, for the preservation of functional urinary outcomes. However, to date, there has not been a direct comparison of perioperative outcomes between PP and TP. Comparing treatments for penile cancer has proven difficult due to the rarity of penile cancer in the United States. We aimed to report differences in pre-operative risk factors, intra-operative outcomes, and postoperative outcomes between TP and PP for penile cancer. Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, we conducted a retrospective cohort review of penile cancer patients enlisted in the database between the years 2006-2016 using the International Classification of Diseases clinical modification 9th revision codes. A total of 260 patients, 67 TP and 193 PP patients, were included. PP patients were less likely to be transferred patients (p = 0.002), diabetic (p = 0.026), and were more likely to have preoperative laboratory values within normal limits. PP patients also had shorter lengths of stay in the hospital (p < 0.001) and operating time (p < 0.001). Significant differences were also found for inpatient stay (p < 0.001), 30-day post-surgery complications (p < 0.001), deep incisional surgical site infection (SSI) (p = 0.017), wound disruption (p = 0.017), intraoperative or postoperative transfusion (p = 0.029), and sepsis (p < 0.005). Finally, PP patients required fewer concurrent surgical procedures (p < 0.001). Demographic differences between PP and TP patients may reflect patients presenting with more advanced oncologic disease. PP is associated with fewer postoperative complications, shorter surgeries, shorter hospital stays, fewer concurrent surgical procedures, and comorbid conditions compared to TP. A gap remains in the reported data pertaining to postoperative sexual function and erectile outcomes for PP at a national level.</p>","PeriodicalId":14068,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Impotence Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative outcomes of partial versus total penectomy for penile carcinoma: A retrospective cohort study on demographics and postoperative complications.\",\"authors\":\"David A Velasquez, Allison Liu, Senthooran Kalidoss, Clinton Yeaman, Darren Bryk, Judy N Fustok, Thomas M Shelton, Hasan Alhameedi, Nalin Payakachat, Mohamed Kamel, Braian R Ledesma, Mahmoud I Khalil, Ryan Smith, Omer Raheem\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41443-024-00935-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>When feasible from an oncologic standpoint, partial penectomy (PP) is often preferred to total penectomy (TP) for penile cancer treatment, for the preservation of functional urinary outcomes. However, to date, there has not been a direct comparison of perioperative outcomes between PP and TP. Comparing treatments for penile cancer has proven difficult due to the rarity of penile cancer in the United States. We aimed to report differences in pre-operative risk factors, intra-operative outcomes, and postoperative outcomes between TP and PP for penile cancer. Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, we conducted a retrospective cohort review of penile cancer patients enlisted in the database between the years 2006-2016 using the International Classification of Diseases clinical modification 9th revision codes. A total of 260 patients, 67 TP and 193 PP patients, were included. PP patients were less likely to be transferred patients (p = 0.002), diabetic (p = 0.026), and were more likely to have preoperative laboratory values within normal limits. PP patients also had shorter lengths of stay in the hospital (p < 0.001) and operating time (p < 0.001). Significant differences were also found for inpatient stay (p < 0.001), 30-day post-surgery complications (p < 0.001), deep incisional surgical site infection (SSI) (p = 0.017), wound disruption (p = 0.017), intraoperative or postoperative transfusion (p = 0.029), and sepsis (p < 0.005). Finally, PP patients required fewer concurrent surgical procedures (p < 0.001). Demographic differences between PP and TP patients may reflect patients presenting with more advanced oncologic disease. PP is associated with fewer postoperative complications, shorter surgeries, shorter hospital stays, fewer concurrent surgical procedures, and comorbid conditions compared to TP. A gap remains in the reported data pertaining to postoperative sexual function and erectile outcomes for PP at a national level.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14068,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Impotence Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Impotence Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-024-00935-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Impotence Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-024-00935-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在阴茎癌治疗中,如果从肿瘤学的角度来看可行,阴茎部分切除术(PP)通常优于阴茎全切除术(TP),以保留排尿功能。然而,迄今为止,尚未对 PP 和 TP 的围手术期结果进行直接比较。由于阴茎癌在美国非常罕见,因此比较阴茎癌的治疗方法非常困难。我们旨在报告阴茎癌 TP 和 PP 在术前风险因素、术中结果和术后结果方面的差异。我们利用国家外科质量改进计划数据库,使用国际疾病分类临床修改第 9 次修订版代码,对 2006-2016 年间入选数据库的阴茎癌患者进行了回顾性队列回顾。共纳入 260 例患者,其中 67 例为 TP 患者,193 例为 PP 患者。PP患者不太可能是转院患者(p = 0.002)、糖尿病患者(p = 0.026),而且术前化验值在正常范围内的可能性更大。PP 患者的住院时间也更短(p = 0.002)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparative outcomes of partial versus total penectomy for penile carcinoma: A retrospective cohort study on demographics and postoperative complications.

Comparative outcomes of partial versus total penectomy for penile carcinoma: A retrospective cohort study on demographics and postoperative complications.

When feasible from an oncologic standpoint, partial penectomy (PP) is often preferred to total penectomy (TP) for penile cancer treatment, for the preservation of functional urinary outcomes. However, to date, there has not been a direct comparison of perioperative outcomes between PP and TP. Comparing treatments for penile cancer has proven difficult due to the rarity of penile cancer in the United States. We aimed to report differences in pre-operative risk factors, intra-operative outcomes, and postoperative outcomes between TP and PP for penile cancer. Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, we conducted a retrospective cohort review of penile cancer patients enlisted in the database between the years 2006-2016 using the International Classification of Diseases clinical modification 9th revision codes. A total of 260 patients, 67 TP and 193 PP patients, were included. PP patients were less likely to be transferred patients (p = 0.002), diabetic (p = 0.026), and were more likely to have preoperative laboratory values within normal limits. PP patients also had shorter lengths of stay in the hospital (p < 0.001) and operating time (p < 0.001). Significant differences were also found for inpatient stay (p < 0.001), 30-day post-surgery complications (p < 0.001), deep incisional surgical site infection (SSI) (p = 0.017), wound disruption (p = 0.017), intraoperative or postoperative transfusion (p = 0.029), and sepsis (p < 0.005). Finally, PP patients required fewer concurrent surgical procedures (p < 0.001). Demographic differences between PP and TP patients may reflect patients presenting with more advanced oncologic disease. PP is associated with fewer postoperative complications, shorter surgeries, shorter hospital stays, fewer concurrent surgical procedures, and comorbid conditions compared to TP. A gap remains in the reported data pertaining to postoperative sexual function and erectile outcomes for PP at a national level.

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
International Journal of Impotence Research
International Journal of Impotence Research 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
19.20%
发文量
140
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Impotence Research: The Journal of Sexual Medicine addresses sexual medicine for both genders as an interdisciplinary field. This includes basic science researchers, urologists, endocrinologists, cardiologists, family practitioners, gynecologists, internists, neurologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, radiologists and other health care clinicians.
×
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