P. Cordeiro, S. Novás, L. Honorato, S. Martínez-Couceiro, C. García-Freire
{"title":"Prostatectomía radical laparoscópica y abierta: experiencia en nuestro centro","authors":"P. Cordeiro, S. Novás, L. Honorato, S. Martínez-Couceiro, C. García-Freire","doi":"10.1016/j.uromx.2015.06.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aims</h3><p>At the Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago de Compostela (Spain), retropubic radical prostatectomy has been performed since 1993 and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy since 2006. We decided to analyze our results and compare the two techniques.</p></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><p>A retrospective observational study was conducted that included all laparoscopic prostatectomies performed within the time frame of January 2011 and September 2013 (62 cases) and all the open prostatectomies performed in 2012 (100 procedures).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We found no statistically significant differences in either the functional (p<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.15) or oncologic (p<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.07) results, but there was a statistically significant difference in relation to complications (p<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.04). The laparoscopic approach is currently the most frequently performed surgical option in our center for the radical approach to prostate cancer.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is a technique with a long learning curve. Nevertheless, we consider that this procedure provides benefits to the patient presenting with prostate cancer, especially with respect to pain, complications, and functional and oncologic results.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34909,"journal":{"name":"Revista mexicana de urologia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.uromx.2015.06.005","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista mexicana de urologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2007408515000944","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Aims
At the Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago de Compostela (Spain), retropubic radical prostatectomy has been performed since 1993 and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy since 2006. We decided to analyze our results and compare the two techniques.
Material and methods
A retrospective observational study was conducted that included all laparoscopic prostatectomies performed within the time frame of January 2011 and September 2013 (62 cases) and all the open prostatectomies performed in 2012 (100 procedures).
Results
We found no statistically significant differences in either the functional (p = 0.15) or oncologic (p = 0.07) results, but there was a statistically significant difference in relation to complications (p = 0.04). The laparoscopic approach is currently the most frequently performed surgical option in our center for the radical approach to prostate cancer.
Conclusions
Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is a technique with a long learning curve. Nevertheless, we consider that this procedure provides benefits to the patient presenting with prostate cancer, especially with respect to pain, complications, and functional and oncologic results.
期刊介绍:
Revista Mexicana de Urología (RMU) [Mexican Journal of Urology] (ISSN: 0185-4542 / ISSN electronic: 2007-4085) is bimonthly publication that disseminates research by academicians and professionals of the international medical community interested in urological subjects, in the format of original articles, clinical cases, review articles brief communications and letters to the editor. Owing to its nature, it is publication with international scope that disseminates contributions in Spanish and English that are rigorously reviewed by peers under the double blind modality. Neither journalistic documents nor those that lack rigorous medical or scientific support are suitable for publication.