Martorana Giuseppe, Manferrari Fabio, Bertaccini Alessandro, Malizia Michele, Palmieri Fabiano, Severini Enrico, Vitullo Giovanni
Department of Urology, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Italy.
Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2004 Mar;76(1):1-5.
Radical prostatectomy is actually the gold-standard treatment for organ-confined prostate cancer. Since Schuessler et al. performed the first laparoscopical radical prostatectomy (LRP) in 1992 this surgical approach for prostate cancer treatment has been widely diffused among european urologists. In this study we report our initial experience with laparoscopic surgery focusing on the oncological assessments and comparing these results to those of the retropubic approach.
Between March 2002 and November 2003, 50 laparoscopic radical prostatectomy were performed at our Institute. We reviewed the operative times, intraoperative complications, mean catheterization and postoperative hospital stay of these first 50 cases. Moreover during the same period a group of 50 consecutive patients underwent retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) and data were analyzed and compared to laparoscopic issues. The laparoscopic approach was performed according to the Montsouris technique. Patient age, Gleason score at biopsy, PSA and clinical stage of the two groups were compared. Positive margins of the two groups were compared in relation to their location and pathological stage.
No significative statistical differences of age, preoperatory PSA, Gleason score at biopsy and clinical stage were observed between the two groups (p > 0.05). Also in post-operative data no significative statistical differences regarding the pathological stage (p = 0.54) and the Gleason score (p = 0.714) were noted between the two groups. In RRP group the pathological stage was pT2 in 28 patients and pT3 in 22 patients; in LRP group was pT2 in 31 patients and pT3 in 19 patients. The mean Gleason score resulted 6.16 in RRP group and 6.10 in LRP group. The number of positive surgical margins was low in both groups and the location was similar in retropubic and laparoscopic specimens. We reported 13 positive surgical margins in RRP group and 12 in LRP (p = 0.8).
Basing on our initial experience with 50 patients we can affirm that laparoscopic radical prostatectomy can be performed with a lower morbidity and oncological results similar to the retropubic approach even in the early phase of the learning curve. Our experience could be useful to encourage all the urologists approaching laparoscopy.
根治性前列腺切除术实际上是局限性前列腺癌的金标准治疗方法。自1992年舒斯勒等人实施首例腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术(LRP)以来,这种治疗前列腺癌的手术方法已在欧洲泌尿外科医生中广泛传播。在本研究中,我们报告了我们腹腔镜手术的初步经验,重点是肿瘤学评估,并将这些结果与耻骨后手术方法的结果进行比较。
2002年3月至2003年11月期间,我们研究所进行了50例腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术。我们回顾了这前50例患者的手术时间、术中并发症、平均导尿时间和术后住院时间。此外,在同一时期,一组连续50例患者接受了耻骨后根治性前列腺切除术(RRP),并对数据进行了分析,并与腹腔镜手术的情况进行了比较。腹腔镜手术采用蒙苏里技术进行。比较了两组患者的年龄、活检时的 Gleason 评分、前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)和临床分期。比较了两组切缘阳性情况及其位置和病理分期。
两组在年龄、术前 PSA、活检时的 Gleason 评分和临床分期方面均未观察到显著的统计学差异(p>0.05)。在术后数据方面,两组在病理分期(p = 0.54)和 Gleason 评分(p = 0.714)方面也未观察到显著的统计学差异。在RRP组中,28例患者的病理分期为pT2,22例患者为pT3;在LRP组中,31例患者为pT2,19例患者为pT3。RRP组的平均Gleason评分为6.16,LRP组为6.10。两组手术切缘阳性数量均较低,耻骨后和腹腔镜标本中的位置相似。我们报告RRP组有13例手术切缘阳性,LRP组有12例(p = 0.8)。
基于我们对50例患者的初步经验,我们可以肯定,即使在学习曲线的早期阶段,腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术也可以以较低的发病率进行,且肿瘤学结果与耻骨后手术方法相似。我们的经验可能有助于鼓励所有涉足腹腔镜手术的泌尿外科医生。