Randomized Controlled Trial of Laparoscopic versus Open Radical Cystectomy in a Laparoscopic Naïve Center.

IF 1.8 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Advances in Urology Pub Date : 2021-07-07 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2021/4731013
Waleed Mohamed Fadlalla, Ayman Hanafy, Mahmoud Abdelhakim, Hatem Aboulkassem, El Sayed Ashraf, Ahmed Abdelbary
{"title":"Randomized Controlled Trial of Laparoscopic versus Open Radical Cystectomy in a Laparoscopic Naïve Center.","authors":"Waleed Mohamed Fadlalla,&nbsp;Ayman Hanafy,&nbsp;Mahmoud Abdelhakim,&nbsp;Hatem Aboulkassem,&nbsp;El Sayed Ashraf,&nbsp;Ahmed Abdelbary","doi":"10.1155/2021/4731013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Laparoscopic radical cystectomy is a challenging surgical procedure; however, it has been largely abandoned in favor of the more intuitive robotic-assisted cystectomy. Due to the prohibitive cost of robotic surgery, the adoption of laparoscopic cystectomy is of relevance in low-resource institutes. <i>Methodology</i>. This is a randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) to open radical cystectomy (ORC) at a single institute. Each group included thirty patients. The trial was designed to compare both approaches regarding operative time, blood loss, transfusion requirements, length of hospital stay, time to oral intake, requirement of opioid analgesia, and complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>LRC was associated with less hospital stay (9.8 vs. 13.8 days, <i>P</i>=0.001), less time to oral solid intake (6 vs. 8.6 days, <i>P</i>=0.031), and lower opioid requirements (23.3% vs. 53.3%, <i>P</i>=0.033). There was a trend towards lower blood loss and transfusion requirements, but this did not reach statistical significance. Overall complication rates were comparable.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Laparoscopic radical cystectomy was associated with comparable postoperative outcomes when compared to ORC in the first laparoscopic cystectomy experience in our center. Benefitting from the assistance of an experienced laparoscopic surgeon is recommended to shorten the learning curve.</p>","PeriodicalId":7490,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Urology","volume":"2021 ","pages":"4731013"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8279872/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/4731013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic radical cystectomy is a challenging surgical procedure; however, it has been largely abandoned in favor of the more intuitive robotic-assisted cystectomy. Due to the prohibitive cost of robotic surgery, the adoption of laparoscopic cystectomy is of relevance in low-resource institutes. Methodology. This is a randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) to open radical cystectomy (ORC) at a single institute. Each group included thirty patients. The trial was designed to compare both approaches regarding operative time, blood loss, transfusion requirements, length of hospital stay, time to oral intake, requirement of opioid analgesia, and complications.

Results: LRC was associated with less hospital stay (9.8 vs. 13.8 days, P=0.001), less time to oral solid intake (6 vs. 8.6 days, P=0.031), and lower opioid requirements (23.3% vs. 53.3%, P=0.033). There was a trend towards lower blood loss and transfusion requirements, but this did not reach statistical significance. Overall complication rates were comparable.

Conclusion: Laparoscopic radical cystectomy was associated with comparable postoperative outcomes when compared to ORC in the first laparoscopic cystectomy experience in our center. Benefitting from the assistance of an experienced laparoscopic surgeon is recommended to shorten the learning curve.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
腹腔镜与开放式根治性膀胱切除术的随机对照试验Naïve中心。
背景:腹腔镜根治性膀胱切除术是一项具有挑战性的手术;然而,由于更直观的机器人辅助膀胱切除术的青睐,这种方法在很大程度上已被放弃。由于机器人手术的成本过高,在资源匮乏的机构采用腹腔镜膀胱切除术是有意义的。方法。这是一项比较腹腔镜根治性膀胱切除术(LRC)和开放式根治性膀胱切除术(ORC)的随机对照试验。每组30例。该试验旨在比较两种方法在手术时间、出血量、输血要求、住院时间、口服时间、阿片类镇痛要求和并发症方面的差异。结果:LRC与更短的住院时间(9.8天对13.8天,P=0.001)、更短的口服固体摄入时间(6天对8.6天,P=0.031)和更低的阿片类药物需求(23.3%对53.3%,P=0.033)相关。有降低失血量和输血需求的趋势,但这没有达到统计学意义。总的并发症发生率比较。结论:在我们中心的第一例腹腔镜膀胱根治术中,腹腔镜根治术与ORC相比具有相当的术后结果。受益于经验丰富的腹腔镜外科医生的帮助,建议缩短学习曲线。
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
Advances in Urology
Advances in Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Urology is a peer-reviewed, open access journal that publishes state-of-the-art reviews and original research papers of wide interest in all fields of urology. The journal strives to provide publication of important manuscripts to the widest possible audience worldwide, without the constraints of expensive, hard-to-access, traditional bound journals. Advances in Urology is designed to improve publication access of both well-established urologic scientists and less well-established writers, by allowing interested scientists worldwide to participate fully.
期刊最新文献
A Review of Electronic Early Warning Systems for Acute Kidney Injury. Patient Demographics and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events after Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer. Complications and Influential Perioperative Factors Associated with SpaceOAR Hydrogel Placement. Photodynamic Therapeutic Effect during 5-Aminolevulinic Acid-Mediated Photodynamic Diagnosis-Assisted Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumors. Effects of the Surgical Ligation of the Ureter in Different Locations on the Kidney over Time in the Rat Model.
×
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