回复:Kumsar S. Re: Kupski T, Małek M, more I.机器人根治性前列腺切除术术后病理检查中切缘阳性的危险人群的相关性。分欧洲杂志。2021;74: 491 - 495

Tomasz Kupski
{"title":"回复:Kumsar S. Re: Kupski T, Małek M, more I.机器人根治性前列腺切除术术后病理检查中切缘阳性的危险人群的相关性。分欧洲杂志。2021;74: 491 - 495","authors":"Tomasz Kupski","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2022.rel1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Thank you very much for your interest in my article on the association of a risk group with positive surgical margin in the intraoperative and final pathology examination after robotic radical prostatectomy (RaRP). The study included 65 consecutive patients, regardless of the prognostic group, who were interested in preserving sexual function. Nerve-sparing (NS) surgery was not performed in patients who presented with cT3a (but not microscopic) or higher tumor grade in the preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) examination – these 6 patients were excluded from the study. In our intraoperative material, 13 patients had Rmicro and 5 patients R1 (surgical margin >1 mm). An additional surgical excision [neurovascular bundle (NVB) resection] was performed in 8 patients: that is, in 5 patients with R1 and additionally in 3 patients with Rmicro. Taking additional specimens due to a positive result of the intraoperative examination during RaRP often requires resection of the neurovascular bundles, which negatively affects sexual function in the future. We considered the decision to resect NVB at Rmicro quite controversial and the decision was made by the operator individually. A positive margin in the final study increases the risk of biochemical recurrence, however, it is not the only factor affecting it [1, 2, 3]. Particularly, when talking about Rmicro where the margin is <1 mm. Out of 13 patients diagnosed with Rmicro, NVB resection was performed in 3 cases – no neoplastic cells were found in each of the 3 resections in the neurovascular bundles.","PeriodicalId":86295,"journal":{"name":"Urologia polska","volume":"75 1","pages":"111 - 111"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reply to: Kumsar S. Re: Kupski T, Małek M, Mor I. The association of a risk group with positive margin in the intraoperative and final pathology examination after robotic radical prostatectomy. Cent European J Urol. 2021; 74: 491-495\",\"authors\":\"Tomasz Kupski\",\"doi\":\"10.5173/ceju.2022.rel1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Thank you very much for your interest in my article on the association of a risk group with positive surgical margin in the intraoperative and final pathology examination after robotic radical prostatectomy (RaRP). The study included 65 consecutive patients, regardless of the prognostic group, who were interested in preserving sexual function. Nerve-sparing (NS) surgery was not performed in patients who presented with cT3a (but not microscopic) or higher tumor grade in the preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) examination – these 6 patients were excluded from the study. In our intraoperative material, 13 patients had Rmicro and 5 patients R1 (surgical margin >1 mm). An additional surgical excision [neurovascular bundle (NVB) resection] was performed in 8 patients: that is, in 5 patients with R1 and additionally in 3 patients with Rmicro. Taking additional specimens due to a positive result of the intraoperative examination during RaRP often requires resection of the neurovascular bundles, which negatively affects sexual function in the future. We considered the decision to resect NVB at Rmicro quite controversial and the decision was made by the operator individually. A positive margin in the final study increases the risk of biochemical recurrence, however, it is not the only factor affecting it [1, 2, 3]. Particularly, when talking about Rmicro where the margin is <1 mm. Out of 13 patients diagnosed with Rmicro, NVB resection was performed in 3 cases – no neoplastic cells were found in each of the 3 resections in the neurovascular bundles.\",\"PeriodicalId\":86295,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urologia polska\",\"volume\":\"75 1\",\"pages\":\"111 - 111\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urologia polska\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2022.rel1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologia polska","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2022.rel1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

非常感谢您对我的文章感兴趣,这篇文章是关于机器人前列腺根治术(RaRP)后术中和最终病理检查中手术切缘阳性的风险组的关联。该研究包括65名对保留性功能感兴趣的连续患者,无论预后组如何。在术前多参数磁共振成像(mpMRI)检查中出现cT3a(但不是显微镜下)或更高肿瘤级别的患者没有进行神经保留(NS)手术——这6名患者被排除在研究之外。在我们的术中材料中,13名患者为Rmicro,5名患者为R1(手术边缘>1 mm)。8名患者进行了额外的手术切除[神经血管束(NVB)切除]:即5名R1患者和3名Rmicro患者。由于RaRP过程中的术中检查结果呈阳性,采集额外的标本通常需要切除神经血管束,这会对未来的性功能产生负面影响。我们认为在Rmicro切除NVB的决定非常有争议,该决定是由操作员单独做出的。最终研究中的阳性边际增加了生化复发的风险,然而,这并不是影响它的唯一因素[1,2,3]。特别是当谈到边缘<1 mm的Rmicro时。在13名被诊断为Rmicro的患者中,有3例进行了NVB切除——在神经血管束的3次切除中,每一次都没有发现肿瘤细胞。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Reply to: Kumsar S. Re: Kupski T, Małek M, Mor I. The association of a risk group with positive margin in the intraoperative and final pathology examination after robotic radical prostatectomy. Cent European J Urol. 2021; 74: 491-495
Thank you very much for your interest in my article on the association of a risk group with positive surgical margin in the intraoperative and final pathology examination after robotic radical prostatectomy (RaRP). The study included 65 consecutive patients, regardless of the prognostic group, who were interested in preserving sexual function. Nerve-sparing (NS) surgery was not performed in patients who presented with cT3a (but not microscopic) or higher tumor grade in the preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) examination – these 6 patients were excluded from the study. In our intraoperative material, 13 patients had Rmicro and 5 patients R1 (surgical margin >1 mm). An additional surgical excision [neurovascular bundle (NVB) resection] was performed in 8 patients: that is, in 5 patients with R1 and additionally in 3 patients with Rmicro. Taking additional specimens due to a positive result of the intraoperative examination during RaRP often requires resection of the neurovascular bundles, which negatively affects sexual function in the future. We considered the decision to resect NVB at Rmicro quite controversial and the decision was made by the operator individually. A positive margin in the final study increases the risk of biochemical recurrence, however, it is not the only factor affecting it [1, 2, 3]. Particularly, when talking about Rmicro where the margin is <1 mm. Out of 13 patients diagnosed with Rmicro, NVB resection was performed in 3 cases – no neoplastic cells were found in each of the 3 resections in the neurovascular bundles.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Choosing a path for CEJU Location of ureteral access sheath in the ureter. Does it affect the fluid flow in different calyces? A new era and future of education: the impact of pandemic on online learning - a study from the European School of Urology. Spermatic vein thrombosis as a rare cause of testicular pain - review of the literature. Surgical outcomes of low-power thulium laser enucleation of prostates >80 g. One-year of follow-up.
×
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