开放式与机器人辅助肾部分切除术的个体内部认知(PERCEPTION 试验):随机对照试验的重要补充视角。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Philipp Reimold, Luisa Bourgeois, Lia Klefenz, Marius Christian Butea-Bocu, Anna Lena Jacobi, Luka Flegar, Christer Groeben, Johannes Huber
{"title":"开放式与机器人辅助肾部分切除术的个体内部认知(PERCEPTION 试验):随机对照试验的重要补充视角。","authors":"Philipp Reimold, Luisa Bourgeois, Lia Klefenz, Marius Christian Butea-Bocu, Anna Lena Jacobi, Luka Flegar, Christer Groeben, Johannes Huber","doi":"10.1159/000545583","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Introduction Randomized controlled trials comparing patients' experience with open (OPN) vs. robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) showed no clear advantages for RAPN. This contradicts our clinical impression, so we analyzed a cohort that underwent both approaches for bilateral renal tumors. The aim of our study was to compare their intraindividual perceptions of OPN and RAPN. Methods Scar assessment and evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were conducted. The questionnaires were retrospectively answered for postoperative day 5 after OPN and RAPN and, as a reference, for the date of presentation. Results Results revealed longer hospitalization and ischemia times in patients with OPN, while ratings for physical condition and quality of life were better in the RAPN group. Stress, depression, and anxiety in cancer patients scored higher in the OPN group. Scar assessment revealed less patient-reported satisfaction after OPN. Patients favored RAPN when comparing both approaches directly and were strongly favored recommending RAPN to a friend. Conclusion This is the first study on the intraindividual perception of OPN vs. RAPN, revealing a comparative judgment clearly in favor of RAPN. Based on our findings, we designed the APPROACH trial to compare OPN and RAPN in a representative population under the conditions of routine care.</p>","PeriodicalId":23414,"journal":{"name":"Urologia Internationalis","volume":" ","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intraindividual perception of open vs. robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (PERCEPTION trial): An important complementing perspective to randomized controlled trials.\",\"authors\":\"Philipp Reimold, Luisa Bourgeois, Lia Klefenz, Marius Christian Butea-Bocu, Anna Lena Jacobi, Luka Flegar, Christer Groeben, Johannes Huber\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000545583\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Introduction Randomized controlled trials comparing patients' experience with open (OPN) vs. robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) showed no clear advantages for RAPN. This contradicts our clinical impression, so we analyzed a cohort that underwent both approaches for bilateral renal tumors. The aim of our study was to compare their intraindividual perceptions of OPN and RAPN. Methods Scar assessment and evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were conducted. The questionnaires were retrospectively answered for postoperative day 5 after OPN and RAPN and, as a reference, for the date of presentation. Results Results revealed longer hospitalization and ischemia times in patients with OPN, while ratings for physical condition and quality of life were better in the RAPN group. Stress, depression, and anxiety in cancer patients scored higher in the OPN group. Scar assessment revealed less patient-reported satisfaction after OPN. Patients favored RAPN when comparing both approaches directly and were strongly favored recommending RAPN to a friend. Conclusion This is the first study on the intraindividual perception of OPN vs. RAPN, revealing a comparative judgment clearly in favor of RAPN. Based on our findings, we designed the APPROACH trial to compare OPN and RAPN in a representative population under the conditions of routine care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23414,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urologia Internationalis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-17\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urologia Internationalis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000545583\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologia Internationalis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000545583","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

摘要

引言 随机对照试验比较了患者接受开放式(OPN)和机器人辅助肾部分切除术(RAPN)的经历,结果显示 RAPN 没有明显优势。这与我们的临床印象相矛盾,因此我们分析了一组接受两种方法治疗双侧肾肿瘤的患者。我们研究的目的是比较个体内部对 OPN 和 RAPN 的看法。方法 对患者报告的结果指标(PROMs)进行疤痕评估和评价。对 OPN 和 RAPN 术后第 5 天的问卷进行了回顾性回答,并以就诊日期作为参考。结果显示,OPN 患者的住院时间和缺血时间更长,而 RAPN 组患者的身体状况和生活质量评分更高。OPN 组癌症患者的压力、抑郁和焦虑评分更高。疤痕评估显示,患者对 OPN 后的满意度较低。在直接比较两种方法时,患者更倾向于 RAPN,并强烈向朋友推荐 RAPN。结论 这是第一项关于个体内部对 OPN 与 RAPN 的看法的研究,研究结果表明,比较判断明显有利于 RAPN。根据我们的研究结果,我们设计了 APPROACH 试验,在常规护理条件下,在具有代表性的人群中比较 OPN 和 RAPN。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Intraindividual perception of open vs. robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (PERCEPTION trial): An important complementing perspective to randomized controlled trials.

Introduction Randomized controlled trials comparing patients' experience with open (OPN) vs. robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) showed no clear advantages for RAPN. This contradicts our clinical impression, so we analyzed a cohort that underwent both approaches for bilateral renal tumors. The aim of our study was to compare their intraindividual perceptions of OPN and RAPN. Methods Scar assessment and evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were conducted. The questionnaires were retrospectively answered for postoperative day 5 after OPN and RAPN and, as a reference, for the date of presentation. Results Results revealed longer hospitalization and ischemia times in patients with OPN, while ratings for physical condition and quality of life were better in the RAPN group. Stress, depression, and anxiety in cancer patients scored higher in the OPN group. Scar assessment revealed less patient-reported satisfaction after OPN. Patients favored RAPN when comparing both approaches directly and were strongly favored recommending RAPN to a friend. Conclusion This is the first study on the intraindividual perception of OPN vs. RAPN, revealing a comparative judgment clearly in favor of RAPN. Based on our findings, we designed the APPROACH trial to compare OPN and RAPN in a representative population under the conditions of routine care.

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
Urologia Internationalis
Urologia Internationalis 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
94
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Concise but fully substantiated international reports of clinically oriented research into science and current management of urogenital disorders form the nucleus of original as well as basic research papers. These are supplemented by up-to-date reviews by international experts on the state-of-the-art of key topics of clinical urological practice. Essential topics receiving regular coverage include the introduction of new techniques and instrumentation as well as the evaluation of new functional tests and diagnostic methods. Special attention is given to advances in surgical techniques and clinical oncology. The regular publication of selected case reports represents the great variation in urological disease and illustrates treatment solutions in singular cases.
×
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