Radu-Tudor Coman, Nicolae Crisan, Iulia Andras, Gabriela Bud, Deliu-Victor Matei, Ottavio DE Cobelli, Ioan Coman, Ioan-Stelian Bocsan
{"title":"机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术在两个极端年龄组(< 50岁vs > 65岁)患者中的结果。","authors":"Radu-Tudor Coman, Nicolae Crisan, Iulia Andras, Gabriela Bud, Deliu-Victor Matei, Ottavio DE Cobelli, Ioan Coman, Ioan-Stelian Bocsan","doi":"10.15386/cjmed-825","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>To assess the outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in two different age subgroups of pre-operatively potent patients: younger than 50 years and older than 65 years.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included in the present study a number of 202 patients with prostate cancer divided into two groups: 99 patients older than 65 years (group 1) and 103 patients younger than 50 years (group 2).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>More than half of the younger patients were low-risk vs 57% of the older patients who were high-risk. Overall positive surgical margins rate was 21.2% in group 1 vs 12.1% in group 2. The early biochemical recurrence at 6 months after radical prostatectomy was 4% in group 1 vs 11.6% in group 2. The continence rate at 6 months was similar between the two groups and was not correlated with the patients' age (p=0.72), nerve-sparing (p=0.3 for group 1, p=0.92 for group 2) or pathological staging (overall p=0.81, p=0.89 in group 1 and p=0.63 in group 2). We observed a significantly higher rate of potency for patients in group 2 (91.5% vs 47.2%, p<0.0001). The most important factor associated with the regain of potency at 6 months after the procedure was the age of the patient (p<0.0001), independently of the type of nerve-sparing performed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Age seems to be the most important predictor of the regain of potency after robotic radical prostatectomy. Patients should be counseled accordingly in order to have realistic expectations about the functional results after robotic-assisted surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":91233,"journal":{"name":"Clujul medical (1957)","volume":"91 1","pages":"92-97"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b6/0a/cm-91-92.PMC5808275.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for patients in two extreme age-groups (< 50 years vs > 65 years).\",\"authors\":\"Radu-Tudor Coman, Nicolae Crisan, Iulia Andras, Gabriela Bud, Deliu-Victor Matei, Ottavio DE Cobelli, Ioan Coman, Ioan-Stelian Bocsan\",\"doi\":\"10.15386/cjmed-825\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>To assess the outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in two different age subgroups of pre-operatively potent patients: younger than 50 years and older than 65 years.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included in the present study a number of 202 patients with prostate cancer divided into two groups: 99 patients older than 65 years (group 1) and 103 patients younger than 50 years (group 2).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>More than half of the younger patients were low-risk vs 57% of the older patients who were high-risk. Overall positive surgical margins rate was 21.2% in group 1 vs 12.1% in group 2. The early biochemical recurrence at 6 months after radical prostatectomy was 4% in group 1 vs 11.6% in group 2. The continence rate at 6 months was similar between the two groups and was not correlated with the patients' age (p=0.72), nerve-sparing (p=0.3 for group 1, p=0.92 for group 2) or pathological staging (overall p=0.81, p=0.89 in group 1 and p=0.63 in group 2). We observed a significantly higher rate of potency for patients in group 2 (91.5% vs 47.2%, p<0.0001). The most important factor associated with the regain of potency at 6 months after the procedure was the age of the patient (p<0.0001), independently of the type of nerve-sparing performed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Age seems to be the most important predictor of the regain of potency after robotic radical prostatectomy. Patients should be counseled accordingly in order to have realistic expectations about the functional results after robotic-assisted surgery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":91233,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clujul medical (1957)\",\"volume\":\"91 1\",\"pages\":\"92-97\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b6/0a/cm-91-92.PMC5808275.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clujul medical (1957)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15386/cjmed-825\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2018/1/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clujul medical (1957)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15386/cjmed-825","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/1/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
背景和目的:评估机器人根治性前列腺切除术在50岁以下和65岁以上两种不同年龄的术前有力患者中的预后。方法:我们将202例前列腺癌患者分为两组:99例65岁以上的患者(第一组)和103例50岁以下的患者(第二组)。结果:超过一半的年轻患者为低风险,57%的老年患者为高风险。手术切缘阳性率1组为21.2%,2组为12.1%。根治性前列腺切除术后6个月早期生化复发率1组为4%,2组为11.6%。6个月时两组的尿失禁率相似,与患者的年龄(p=0.72)、神经保留(组1 p=0.3,组2 p=0.92)或病理分期(总p=0.81,组1 p=0.89,组2 p=0.63)无关。我们观察到组2患者的效能率明显更高(91.5% vs 47.2%, p结论:年龄似乎是机器人根治性前列腺切除术后效能恢复的最重要预测因素。患者应得到相应的建议,以便对机器人辅助手术后的功能结果有现实的期望。
Outcomes of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for patients in two extreme age-groups (< 50 years vs > 65 years).
Background and aims: To assess the outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in two different age subgroups of pre-operatively potent patients: younger than 50 years and older than 65 years.
Methods: We included in the present study a number of 202 patients with prostate cancer divided into two groups: 99 patients older than 65 years (group 1) and 103 patients younger than 50 years (group 2).
Results: More than half of the younger patients were low-risk vs 57% of the older patients who were high-risk. Overall positive surgical margins rate was 21.2% in group 1 vs 12.1% in group 2. The early biochemical recurrence at 6 months after radical prostatectomy was 4% in group 1 vs 11.6% in group 2. The continence rate at 6 months was similar between the two groups and was not correlated with the patients' age (p=0.72), nerve-sparing (p=0.3 for group 1, p=0.92 for group 2) or pathological staging (overall p=0.81, p=0.89 in group 1 and p=0.63 in group 2). We observed a significantly higher rate of potency for patients in group 2 (91.5% vs 47.2%, p<0.0001). The most important factor associated with the regain of potency at 6 months after the procedure was the age of the patient (p<0.0001), independently of the type of nerve-sparing performed.
Conclusions: Age seems to be the most important predictor of the regain of potency after robotic radical prostatectomy. Patients should be counseled accordingly in order to have realistic expectations about the functional results after robotic-assisted surgery.