The impact of surgical technique on very early functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy.

IF 1.4 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia Pub Date : 2024-10-02 DOI:10.4081/aiua.2024.12531
Mladen Stankovic
{"title":"The impact of surgical technique on very early functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy.","authors":"Mladen Stankovic","doi":"10.4081/aiua.2024.12531","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>To determine the very early functional as well as oncological outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) at a single institution.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified patients who underwent RARP or ORP at our institution between August 2021 and July 2023. The main criterion for surgical technique selection was patient preference. Primary endpoints included anastomosis leakage rate, very early continence rate reported by standardized pad-test, and positive surgical margin rate. Furthermore, we analyzed operation time, hospital stay, postoperative analgesia, and complication rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In this prospective study, we analyzed data from 222 radical prostatectomies (111 RARP and 111 ORP). There were no significant differences in preoperative age, prostate size, and risk stratification among the groups. Patients who underwent RARP had lower anastomosis leakage rates (8.1% vs. 18.9%) and slightly lower early continence rates (76.6% vs. 78.4%) when compared to patients who underwent ORP. Positive surgical margin rates were similar, and complication rates were also comparable. Operation time was similar for both techniques, but the hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RARP group (6.3 vs. 9.1 days, p=0.03). The ORP group experienced significantly higher opioid administration postoperatively (p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>From a functional and oncological point of view, both techniques are safe and provide excellent outcomes when performed by experienced surgeons. Nevertheless, patients are likely to benefit from a shortened hospital stay and reduced postoperative pain after RARP.</p>","PeriodicalId":46900,"journal":{"name":"Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2024.12531","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: To determine the very early functional as well as oncological outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) at a single institution.

Methods: We identified patients who underwent RARP or ORP at our institution between August 2021 and July 2023. The main criterion for surgical technique selection was patient preference. Primary endpoints included anastomosis leakage rate, very early continence rate reported by standardized pad-test, and positive surgical margin rate. Furthermore, we analyzed operation time, hospital stay, postoperative analgesia, and complication rates.

Results: In this prospective study, we analyzed data from 222 radical prostatectomies (111 RARP and 111 ORP). There were no significant differences in preoperative age, prostate size, and risk stratification among the groups. Patients who underwent RARP had lower anastomosis leakage rates (8.1% vs. 18.9%) and slightly lower early continence rates (76.6% vs. 78.4%) when compared to patients who underwent ORP. Positive surgical margin rates were similar, and complication rates were also comparable. Operation time was similar for both techniques, but the hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RARP group (6.3 vs. 9.1 days, p=0.03). The ORP group experienced significantly higher opioid administration postoperatively (p<0.001).

Conclusions: From a functional and oncological point of view, both techniques are safe and provide excellent outcomes when performed by experienced surgeons. Nevertheless, patients are likely to benefit from a shortened hospital stay and reduced postoperative pain after RARP.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
手术技术对根治性前列腺切除术后早期功能结果的影响。
简介:目的:确定在一家医院进行机器人辅助前列腺癌根治术(RARP)和开放性前列腺癌根治术(ORP)后的早期功能和肿瘤治疗效果:目的:确定在一家医疗机构接受机器人辅助前列腺癌根治术(RARP)和开放前列腺癌根治术(ORP)后的早期功能和肿瘤预后:我们确定了2021年8月至2023年7月期间在本院接受RARP或ORP手术的患者。手术技术选择的主要标准是患者的偏好。主要终点包括吻合口漏率,通过标准化垫测试报告的极早期失禁率,以及手术边缘阳性率。此外,我们还分析了手术时间、住院时间、术后镇痛和并发症发生率:在这项前瞻性研究中,我们分析了 222 例前列腺癌根治术(111 例 RARP 和 111 例 ORP)的数据。两组患者在术前年龄、前列腺大小和风险分层方面没有明显差异。与接受前列腺癌根治术的患者相比,接受前列腺癌根治术的患者吻合口漏率较低(8.1% 对 18.9%),早期尿失禁率稍低(76.6% 对 78.4%)。手术切缘阳性率相似,并发症发生率也相当。两种技术的手术时间相似,但RARP组的住院时间明显更短(6.3天对9.1天,P=0.03)。ORP组术后阿片类药物用量明显高于RARP组(P=0.03):从功能和肿瘤学角度来看,这两种技术都是安全的,由经验丰富的外科医生操作可获得极佳的疗效。不过,RARP术后住院时间缩短,术后疼痛减轻,患者可能会从中受益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
35.70%
发文量
72
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
"Bottoms-up" minimally-invasive approach to inguinal lymph node dissection for penile cancer management. A single-center comparative study versus open approach and review. A systematic review and meta-analysis of short- and long-term complications of early versus delayed penile prosthesis implantation in patients with ischemic priapism. Adverse events related to laser fibers and laser machines during ureteroscopy and stone lithotripsy: Insights from an updated 10-year analysis of the US MAUDE database. Can serum 17-hydroxy progesterone predict an improvement in semen parameters following micro-varicocelectomy? A prospective study. CFTR Exon 10 deleterious mutations in patients with congenital bilateral absence of vas deferens in a cohort of Pakistani patients.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1