da Vinci Προστατεκτομή
Ανάλογα με την μέθοδο:
Ανάλογα με τον χρόνο δημοσίευσης:
Οι παρακάτω επιλεγμένες δημοσιεύσεις υποστηρίζουν την κλινική αποτελεσματικότητα της da Vinci Προστατεκτομής. Για επιπλέον βιβλιογραφικές αναφορές σχετικά με την ρομποτική χειρουργική επισκεφτείτε την ιστοσελίδα της MEDLINE PubMed.
Η ιστοσελίδα της MEDLINE προσφέρει συνδέσμους για να κατεβάσετε ολόκληρο το άρθρο σε μορφή PDF από την ιστοσελίδα του εκδότη του περιοδικού με ορισμένο αντίτιμο.
A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution.
Ficarra V, Novara G, et al. BJU Int 2009; 104: 534.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the functional results of two contemporary series of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated by robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) or retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a non-randomized prospective comparative study of all patients undergoing RALP or RRP for clinically localized prostate cancer at our institution from February 2006 to April 2007.
RESULTS: We enrolled 105 patients in the RRP and 103 in the RALP group; the two groups were comparable for all clinical and pathological variables, except median age. For RRP and RALP the respective median operative duration was 135 and 185 min (P < 0.001), the intraoperative blood loss 500 and 300 mL (P < 0.001) and postoperative transfusion rates 14% and 1.9% (P < 0.01). There were complications in 9.7% and 10.4% of the patients (P = 0.854) after RRP and RALP, respectively; the positive surgical margin rates in pT2 cancers were 12.2% and 11.7% (P = 0.70). For urinary continence, 41% of patients having RRP and 68.9% of those having RALP were continent at catheter removal (P < 0.001). The 12-month continence rates were 88% after RRP and 97% after RALP (P = 0.01), with the mean time to continence being 75 and 25 days (P < 0.001), respectively. At the 12-month follow-up, 20 of 41 patients having bilateral nerve-sparing RRP (49%) and 52 of 64 having bilateral nerve-sparing RALP (81%) (P < 0.001) had recovery of erectile function.
CONCLUSIONS: RALP offers better results than RRP in terms of urinary continence and erectile function recovery, with similar positive surgical margin rates.
Robotic vs open prostatectomy in a laparoscopically naive centre: a matched-pair analysis.
Rocco B, Matei DV, et al. BJU Int 2009; 104: 991.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the early oncological, perioperative and functional outcomes of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) vs open retropubic RP (RRP) in a laparoscopically naive centre, as robotic assistance aids the laparoscopically naive surgeon in minimally invasive prostate surgery, by offering magnification and superior dexterity.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1 November 2006 to 31 December 2007, 120 patients had RARP; this group was followed prospectively and evaluated for early oncological, perioperative and functional outcomes (measured at 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery), and compared to a historical control group of consecutive patients who had RRP from 20 May 2004 to 28 February 2007. All patients were operated by the same laparoscopically naive surgeons. The comparison was by matched-pair analysis.
RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of the two groups were equivalent, although there was a higher percentage of patients with pT3/pT4 disease in the RRP group. As a proxy for oncological outcome, positive surgical margins were equivalent in the two groups (22% RARP vs 25% RRP, P = 0.77). The overall mean (range) surgical duration was significantly longer in RARP group, at 215 (165-450) min vs 160 (90-240) min in the RRP group (P < 0.001). However, RARP had a statistically significant advantage over RRP for estimated blood loss, of 200 vs 800 mL (P < 0.001), duration of catheterization (6 vs 7 days P < 0.001) and length of stay (3 vs 6 days, P < 0.001) The 3, 6 and 12-month continence rates were 70%, 93% and 97% vs 63%, 83% and 88% after RARP and RRP, respectively (P = 0.15, 0.011 and 0.014). The 3, 6 and 12 month overall potency recovery rate was 31%, 43% and 61% vs 18%, 31% and 41%, after RARP and RRP, respectively (P = 0.006, 0.045 and 0.003).
CONCLUSION: Our initial experience showed the feasibility of RARP in a laparoscopically naive centre. RRP seems to be a faster procedure, whereas RARP provided better results in terms of estimated blood loss, hospitalization and functional results. The early oncological outcome seemed to be equivalent in the two groups.
Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: A matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques.
Krambeck, AE, DiMarco DS, et al. BJU Int 2009; 103: 448.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the perioperative complications and early oncological results in a comparative study matching open radical retropubic (RRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) groups.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: From August 2002 to December 2005 we identified 294 patients undergoing RARP for clinically localized prostate cancer. A comparison RRP group of 588 patients from the same period was matched 2:1 for surgical year, age, preoperative prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage and biopsy Gleason grade. Perioperative complications were compared. Patients completed a standardized quality-of-life questionnaire. Pathological features were assessed and Kaplan-Meier estimates of biochemical progression-free survival (PFS) were compared.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in overall perioperative complications between the RARP and RRP groups (8.0% vs 4.8%, P = 0.064). Wound herniation was more common after RARP (1.0% vs none, P = 0.038), and development of bladder neck contracture was more common after RRP (1.2% vs 4.6%; P < 0.018). The hospital stay was less after RARP (29.3% vs 19.4%, P = 0.004, for a stay of 1 day). At the 1-year follow-up there was no significant difference in continence (RARP 91.8%, RRP 93.7%, P = 0.344) or potency (RARP 70.0%, RRP 62.8%, P = 0.081) rates. The biochemical PFS was no different between treatments at 3 years (RARP 92.4%, RRP 92.2%; P = 0.69).
CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in overall early complication, long-term continence or potency rates between the RARP and RRP techniques. Furthermore, early oncological outcomes were similar, with equivalent margin positivity and PFS between the groups.
Open versus robotic radical prostatectomy: A prospective analysis based on a single surgeon's experience.
Ham WS, Park SY, et al. Journal of Robotic Surgery 2008; 2: 235.
The background of this study is to compare prospectively the oncological and functional results of open radical prostatectomy (OP) and robotic prostatectomy (RP) from the experience of a single surgeon. Between June 2002 and June 2007, 422 patients underwent radical prostatectomy (OP 199, RP 223). We divided OP patients into 89 early cases (OP-I) and 110 late cases (OP-II) before and after introduction of a robotic system, and RP patients into 35 early cases (RP-I) and 188 late cases (RP-II). Functional outcomes were measured by use of validated questionnaires completed by the patients. There were no significant differences in preoperative characteristics among the four groups, except that RP-I patients had lower biopsy Gleason scores. In the RP groups the mean estimated blood loss was lower and mean durations of hospital stay and bladder catheterization were shorter compared to those of the OP groups. The frequency of intraoperative complications was significantly lower in the RP-II group. The positive surgical margin rates in the RP-II group were similar to or lower than those in the OP groups when stratified by pathologic stage T2 and T3. From one month after surgery, RP-II patients had higher continence rates than OP-II patients. For patients 60 years old, recovery of potency was better in the RP-II group. To conclude, RP by an experienced surgeon may have a similar or lower positive surgical margin rate than OP. Additionally, RP may lead to a shorter duration of bladder catheterization and hospital stay and better recovery of continence and potency than obtainable by OP.
Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon's outcomes.
Ahlering TE, Woo D, et al. Urology 2004; 63: 819.
OBJECTIVES: To compare internally one surgeon's standard open radical prostatectomy (RP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic RP (RLP) results. RLP, like standard laparoscopic RP, ultimately needs to produce similar or improved results compared with standard RP techniques. Little information comparing RLP with standard RP exists.
METHODS: As an internal control, we selected the last 60 standard RPs performed by one surgeon (T.A.) before initiating RLPs. For the RLP group, we selected cases 46 to 105 (n = 60) after the learning curve had adequately matured. We compared the clinical characteristics, perioperative results, and early clinical outcomes.
RESULTS: The study and control groups had similar clinical characteristics (age, body size, preoperative prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and Gleason score). No statistically significant differences were found between groups for prostate size, pT stage, Gleason score, or margin status (16.7% versus 20%; P = nonsignificant). The RLP group had a statistically significant advantage for estimated blood loss (103 versus 418 mL), postoperative hemoglobin change (1.6 versus 3.3 mg/dL), and hospital stay (1.02 versus 2.2 days). Complete continence (0 pads) at 3 months of follow-up and the rate of postoperative complications were similar for the RLP and RP groups (76% versus 75% and 6.7% versus 10%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: We present the results of RLP and RP performed by one surgeon. With only a 100-case experience, RLP had oncologic and urinary outcomes that were at least equal to those after RP. RLP offers the benefits of minimally invasive surgery and does not compromise clinical or pathologic outcomes.
A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution.
Tewari A, Srivasatava A, et al. BJU Int 2003; 92: 205.
The authors from the Vattikuti Institute in the USA report a prospective comparison of radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted prostatectomy. They found that the robot-assisted procedure was safer, and yielded favourable oncological and functional results. They also present work in association with the Department of Urology in Mansoura into robot-assisted radical cystoprostatectomy and urinary diversion, and point out the advantages and disadvantages associated with performing the most complex types of urinary diversion. There is also an interesting paper relating to the association between sexual factors and prostate cancer, from authors in institutions in Australia, New Zealand and Italy. They found that in a case-control study of men aged <70 years, ejaculatory frequency was negatively associated with the risk of prostate cancer. Technology has made many contributions to the management of urological patients. The classic example is that of urinary stone management. Authors from the USA evaluated cyroablation of renal carcinoma in patients with solitary kidneys. They are encouraged by their results and suggest that there is merit in this treatment, but indicate the need for a longer follow-up.
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare standard radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) and the robotically assisted Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy (VIP) in the management of localized prostate cancer.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was a single-institution, prospective, unrandomized comparison of histopathological, and functional outcomes, at baseline and during and after surgery, in 100 patients undergoing RRP and 200 undergoing VIP.
RESULTS: While the variables before surgery, the operative duration (163 vs 160 min) and pathological stages were comparable, there were significant differences in the measured outcomes. The blood loss was 910 and 150 mL for RRP and VIP, respectively, and transfusion was greater after RRP (67% vs none; both P < 0.001). There were four times as many complications after RRP (20% vs 5%, P < 0.05), the haemoglobin level at discharge was lower (100 vs 130 g/L, P < 0.005) and the hospital stay longer (3.5 vs 1.2 days; P < 0.05). Most (93%) of VIP and none of the RRP patients were discharged within 24 h (P < 0.001); the duration of catheterization was twice as long after RRP (15.8 vs 7 days; P < 0.05). Positive margin was more frequent after RRP (23% vs 9%, P < 0.05). After VIP, patients achieved continence and return of erections more quickly than after RRP (160 vs 44, and 180 vs 440 days, both P < 0.5). The median return to intercourse was 340 days after VIP but after RRP half the patients have as yet not resumed intercourse at 700 days (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The VIP procedure appears to be safer, less bloody and requires shorter hospitalization and catheterization. The oncological and functional results were favourable in patients undergoing VIP.
1. Long-term survival probability in men with clinically localized prostate cancer treated either conservatively or with definitive treatment (radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy)
Tewari A, Ramana JD, et al. Urology 2006; 68: 1268.
Objectives: To report the long-term survival probability in more than 3000 men with localized prostate cancer treated either conservatively or by definitive treatment (radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy).
Methods: We studied 3159 men with biopsy-confirmed, clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed from 1980 to 1997. We restricted our analysis to men 75 years of age or younger. The extent of comorbid disease was measured using the Charlson score. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to compare long-term survival in patients who were treated conservatively versus survival in patients treated with either radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy.
Results: After adjusting for age, race, tumor grade, comorbid disease, income status, and year of diagnosis, the overall survival rate at 15 years was 35% for conservative management, 50% for radiotherapy, and 65% for radical prostatectomy. The corresponding prostate cancer-specific survival rates were 79%, 87%, and 92%. Patients undergoing radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy had lower overall mortality than patients undergoing conservative management (adjusted relative risk 0.67 for radiotherapy and 0.41 for prostatectomy; P <0.001). The increase in the survival duration was 4.6 years with radiotherapy and 8.6 years with radical prostatectomy.
Conclusions: The results of this study have shown that compared with conservative management, both radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy increase survival for men with localized prostate cancer.
2. Long-Term Survival in Men With High Grade Prostate Cancer: A Comparison Between Conservative Treatment, Radiation Therapy and Radical Prostatectomy - A Propensity Scoring Approach
Tewarin A, Divine G, et al. J Urol 2007; 177: 911.
Purpose: We performed a retrospective cohort study using propensity score analysis to calculate long-term survival in patients with prostate cancer with Gleason score 8 or greater who were treated with conservative therapy, radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy.
Materials and Methods: Between January 1, 1980 and December 31, 1997, 3,159 patients in the Henry Ford Health System were diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Of these patients 453 had a Gleason score of 8 or greater in the biopsy specimen and they were the cohort. The end points were overall and prostate cancer specific survival. Propensity score analysis was used to more precisely compare the 3 treatments of observation, radiation and radical prostatectomy. Median patient followup was longer in the radical prostatectomy arm than in the conservative treatment and radiation therapy arms (68 months vs 52 and 54, respectively).
Results: Of the 453 patients 197 (44%) were treated conservatively, 137 (30%) received radiation therapy and 119 (26%) underwent radical prostatectomy. Using propensity scoring analysis median overall survival for conservative therapy, radiation and radical prostatectomy was 5.2, 6.7 and 9.7 years, respectively. Median cancer specific survival was 7.8 years for conservative therapy and more than 14 years for radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy. The risk of cancer specific death following radical prostatectomy was 68% lower than for conservative treatment and 49% lower than for radiation therapy (p <0.001 and 0.053, respectively).
Conclusions: Survival of men with high grade prostate cancer can be improved by radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy.
Ficarra V, Novara G, et al. A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution. BJU Int 2009; 104: 534. Περίληψη
Rocco B, Matei DV, et al. Robotic vs open prostatectomy in a laparoscopically naive centre: a matched-pair analysis BJU Int 2009 May 5. Περίληψη
Krambeck AE, DiMarco DS, et al. Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: A matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques. BJU Int 2009; 103: 448. Περίληψη
Yee DS, Narula N, et al. Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Current Evaluation of Surgical Margins in Clinically Low-, Intermediate-, and High-Risk Prostate Cancer. J Endourol 2009; 23: 1461.
Ham WS, SY Park, et al. Open versus robotic radical prostatectomy: A prospective analysis based on a single surgeon's experience. Journal of Robotic Surgery 2008; 2: 235.
Borin JF, Skarecky DW, et al. Impact of urethral stump length on continence and positive surgical margins in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Urology 2007; 70: 173. Περίληψη
Badani KK, Kaul S, et al. Evolution of robotic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 2766 procedures. Cancer 2007; 110: 1951. Περίληψη
Boris RS, Kaul SA, et al. Radical prostatectomy: a single surgeon comparison of retropubic, perineal, and robotic approaches. Can J Urol 2007; 14: 3566. Περίληψη
Shah KS, Thaly RK, et al. Peri-operative Outcomes of Robotic Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Single Surgeon Experience. AUA 2007.
Patel AS, Shah KK, et al. Operative Complications of Robotic assisted Radical Prostatectomy: The Learning curve and Beyond - A single surgeon series. AUA 2007.
Patel VR, Thaly R, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy: outcomes of 500 cases. BJU Int 2007; 99: 1109. Περίληψη
Haliloglu A, Baltaci S, et al. Penile length changes in men treated with androgen suppression plus radiation therapy for local or locally advanced prostate cancer. Findings support observations of decreased penile length after neoadjuvant hormonal therapy plus external beam radiation therapy for local or locally advanced prostate cancer. J Urol 2007; 177: 128. Περίληψη
Menon M, Shrivastava A, et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol 2007;51: 648. Περίληψη
Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, et al. Impact of cautery versus cautery-free preservation of neurovascular bundles on early return of potency. J Endourol 2006; 20: 586. Περίληψη
Kaul S, Savera A, et al. Functional outcomes and oncological efficacy of Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy with Veil of Aphrodite nerve-sparing: an analysis of 154 consecutive patients. BJU Int 2006; 97: 467. Περίληψη
Menon M, Kaul S, et al. Potency following robotic radical prostatectomy: a questionnaire based analysis of outcomes after conventional nerve sparing and prostatic fascia sparing techniques. J Urol 2005; 174: 2291. Περίληψη
Ahlering TE, Eichel L, et al. Feasibility study for robotic radical Prostatectomy cautery-free neurovascular bundle preservation. Urology 2005; 65: 994. Περίληψη
Ahlering TE, Eichel L, et al. Rapid communication: early potency outcomes with cautery-free neurovascular bundle preservation with robotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2005; 19: 715. Περίληψη
Baxter N, Tepper J, et al. 2005. Increased Risk of Rectal Cancer After Prostate Radiation: A Population-Based Study. Gastroenterology 2005; 128: 819.
Patel V. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urology 2005; 66: 45. Περίληψη
Patel VR, Tully AS, et al. Robotic radical Prostatectomy in the community setting – the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. Urology 2005; 174: 269. Περίληψη
Ahlering TE, Eichel L, et al. Robotic radical Prostatectomy: a technique to reduce pT2 positive margins. Urology 2004; 64: 1224. Περίληψη
Ahlering TE, Woo D, et al. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon's outcomes. Urology 2004; 63: 819. Περίληψη
Basillote JB, Ahlering TE, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: review and assessment of an emerging technique. Surg Endosc 2004; 18: 1694. Περίληψη
Lee DI, Eichel L, et al. Robotic laparoscopic radical Prostatectomy with a single assistant. Urology 2004; 63: 1172. Περίληψη
Menon M, Hemal AK, et al. The technique of apical dissection of the prostate and urethrovesical anastomosis in robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2004; 93: 715. Περίληψη
Menon M, Tewari A, et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy, a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy for management of localized carcinoma of the prostate: experience of over 1100 cases. Urol Clin North Am 2004; 31: 701. Περίληψη
Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, et al. Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2003; 170: 1738. Περίληψη
Bentas W, Wolfram M, et al. Robotic technology and the translation of open radical prostatectomy to laparoscopy: the early Frankfurt experience with robotic radical prostatectomy and one year follow-up. Eur Urol 2003; 44: 175. Περίληψη
Kaouk JH, Desai MM, et al. Robotic assisted laparoscopic sural nerve grafting during radical prostatectomy: initial experience. J Urol 2003; 170: 909. Περίληψη
Menon M. Robotic radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int 2003; 91: 175. Περίληψη
Menon M, Hemal AK, et al. Nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical cystoprostatectomy and urinary diversion. BJU Int 2003; 92: 232. Περίληψη
Menon M, Tewari A, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy and the Vattikuti Urology Institute technique: an interim analysis of results and technical points. Urology 2003; 61 (Suppl 1): 15. Περίληψη
Perer E, Lee DI, et al. Robotic revelation: laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by a nonlaparoscopic surgeon. J Am Coll Surg 2003; 197: 693. Περίληψη
Tewari A, Menon M. Vattikuti Institute Prostatectomy: Surgical technique and current results. Curr Urol Rep 2003; 4: 119. Περίληψη
Tewari A, Peabody JO, et al. An operative and anatomic study to help in nerve sparing during laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2003; 43: 444. Περίληψη
Tewari A, Srivasatava A, et al. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int 2003; 92: 205. Περίληψη
Van Velthoven RF, Ahlering TE, et al. Technique for laparoscopic running urethrovesical anastomosis: the single knot method. Urology 2003; 61: 699. Περίληψη
Menon M, Shrivastava A, et al. Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol 2002; 168: 945. Περίληψη
Menon M, Tewari A, et al. Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology 2002; 60: 864. Περίληψη
Tewari A, Peabody J, et al. Technique of da Vinci robot-assisted anatomic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2002; 60: 569. Περίληψη