• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

腹腔镜腹膜外根治性前列腺切除术与经腹根治性前列腺切除术及开放性耻骨后根治性前列腺切除术的发病率比较

Morbidity of laparoscopic extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal radical prostatectomy verus open retropubic radical prostatectomy.

作者信息

Remzi M, Klingler H C, Tinzl M V, Fong Y K, Lodde M, Kiss B, Marberger M

机构信息

Department of Urology, University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria.

出版信息

Eur Urol. 2005 Jul;48(1):83-9; discussion 89. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.03.026. Epub 2005 Apr 12.

DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2005.03.026
PMID:15967256
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Morbidity and postoperative pain after extraperitoneal (E-LRPE) and transperitoneal (T-LRPE) laparoscopic radical prostatectomy was compared to open extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (O-RPE).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between January 2002 and October 2003, we evaluated 41 E-LRPE, 39 T-LRPE and 41 O-RPE prospectively. All operations were performed as standard procedures by the same group of surgeons and perioperative results and complications were evaluated. Pain management was performed with tramadol 50-100 mg on demand, and no other form of anaesthesia was given. Postoperative pain was assessed daily in all patients quantifying analgesic requirement and evaluation of Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). All patients had at least a 12 month follow-up.

RESULTS

Mean age, prostate volume, PSA and Gleason score were comparable between all three groups (p>0.05). Mean blood loss was lower with laparoscopy (189+/-140 and 290+/-254 ml), as compared to 385+/-410 ml for O-RPE (p=0.002). However, mean operating times were significantly longer in L-TRPE (279+/-70 min) as compared to E-LRPE (217+/-51 min) and O-RPE (195+/-72 min) (p<0.001), but E-LRPE and O-RPE showed no statistical difference (p=0.1143). Average VAS score on the 1st and 5th postoperative day for E-LRPE versus T-LRPE versus O-RPE was 4.9+/-1.0 versus 7.8+/-1.5 versus 5.8+/-1.9 and 1.6+/-0.9 versus 2.3+/-1.2 versus 2.3+/-0.9 respectively, which was significant lower (p=0.02) between E-LRPE versus T-LRPE (p<0.001) and O-RPE (p=0.008), but equal (p=0.655) between T-LRPE and O-RPE since postoperative day 3. Mean tramadol analgesic consumption within the first postoperative week was 290 versus 490 versus 300 mg respectively, which was statistical different between E-LRPE and T-LRPE (p<0.001), O-RPE and T-LRPE (p<0.001), but not between E-LRPE and O-RPE (p=0.550). Statistical analysis revealed a strong correlation of urinary leakage with increased postoperative pain (p=0.029) in all groups, especially for T-LRPE (p=0.007). Likewise, increased operating times (>240 min) were associated with increased post-operative pain (p=0.049). Full continence defined as no pads at one year was achieved in 36/41 (88%, E-LRPE) versus 33/39 (85%, T-LRPE) versus 33/41 (81%, O-RPE), respectively (p=0.2).

CONCLUSION

E-LRPE resulted in a significant subjective (VAS Score, p<0.001) and objective (analgetic consumption, p<0.001) pain reduction compared to T-LRPE, but only in VAS Score compared to O-RPE (p=0.008). Analgetic consumption during first postoperative week was equal in E-LRPE (290 mg) and O-RPE (300 mg) (p=0.550). Shorter operating times, lower urinary leakage rates, lower stricture rates and lower blood loss in E-LRPE compared to T-LRPE are mainly explained due to the long learning curve in LRPE, which we did not overcome yet, and not due to the approach (extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal).

摘要

目的

比较腹膜外腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术(E-LRPE)、经腹腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术(T-LRPE)与开放性腹膜外根治性前列腺切除术(O-RPE)的发病率及术后疼痛情况。

材料与方法

2002年1月至2003年10月,我们前瞻性评估了41例E-LRPE、39例T-LRPE和41例O-RPE。所有手术均由同一组外科医生按标准程序进行,并对围手术期结果及并发症进行评估。按需使用50 - 100mg曲马多进行疼痛管理,未给予其他形式的麻醉。所有患者每天评估术后疼痛情况,量化镇痛需求并采用视觉模拟评分法(VAS)进行评估。所有患者至少随访12个月。

结果

三组患者的平均年龄、前列腺体积、前列腺特异抗原(PSA)及Gleason评分具有可比性(p>0.05)。与O-RPE的385±410ml相比,腹腔镜手术的平均失血量较少(189±140ml和290±254ml)(p = 0.002)。然而,与E-LRPE(217±51分钟)和O-RPE(195±72分钟)相比,L-TRPE的平均手术时间显著更长(279±70分钟)(p<0.001),但E-LRPE和O-RPE无统计学差异(p = 0.1143)。E-LRPE、T-LRPE和O-RPE术后第1天和第5天的平均VAS评分分别为4.9±1.0、7.8±1.5和5.8±1.9,以及1.6±0.9、2.3±1.2和2.3±0.9,E-LRPE与T-LRPE(p<0.001)和O-RPE(p = 0.008)相比显著更低(p = 0.02),但术后第3天起T-LRPE和O-RPE相等(p = 0.655)。术后第一周曲马多平均镇痛消耗量分别为290mg、490mg和300mg,E-LRPE与T-LRPE(p<0.001)、O-RPE与T-LRPE(p<0.001)之间存在统计学差异,但E-LRPE与O-RPE之间无差异(p = 0.550)。统计分析显示,所有组中尿漏与术后疼痛增加密切相关(p = 0.029),尤其是T-LRPE(p = 0.007)。同样,手术时间延长(>240分钟)与术后疼痛增加相关(p = 0.049)。术后一年达到完全控尿(定义为无需使用尿垫)的比例分别为36/41(88%,E-LRPE)、33/39(85%,T-LRPE)和33/41(81%,O-RPE),(p = 0.2)。

结论

与T-LRPE相比,E-LRPE在主观(VAS评分,p<0.001)和客观(镇痛药物消耗量,p<0.001)上均使疼痛显著减轻,但与O-RPE相比仅在VAS评分上有差异(p = 0.008)。E-LRPE(290mg)和O-RPE(300mg)术后第一周的镇痛药物消耗量相等(p = 0.550)。与T-LRPE相比,E-LRPE手术时间更短、尿漏率更低、狭窄率更低且失血量更少,这主要是由于LRPE的学习曲线较长,我们尚未克服,而非手术入路(腹膜外与经腹)的原因。

相似文献

1
Morbidity of laparoscopic extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal radical prostatectomy verus open retropubic radical prostatectomy.腹腔镜腹膜外根治性前列腺切除术与经腹根治性前列腺切除术及开放性耻骨后根治性前列腺切除术的发病率比较
Eur Urol. 2005 Jul;48(1):83-9; discussion 89. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.03.026. Epub 2005 Apr 12.
2
Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus extraperitoneal endoscopic radical prostatectomy.腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术:经腹腔腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术与腹膜外内镜根治性前列腺切除术。
J Med Assoc Thai. 2007 Dec;90(12):2644-50.
3
Comparison of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using match-pair analysis.采用配对分析比较经腹和腹膜外腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术
Eur Urol. 2004 Sep;46(3):312-9; discussion 320. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2004.05.004.
4
Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution.腹腔镜与开放性根治性前列腺切除术:单机构的比较研究
J Urol. 2003 May;169(5):1689-93. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000062614.56629.41.
5
[Study of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy. Comparison between laparoscopic and retropubic prostatectomy based on a series of 251 cases].[根治性前列腺切除术后尿失禁的研究。基于251例病例的腹腔镜前列腺切除术与耻骨后前列腺切除术的比较]
Prog Urol. 2008 Jun;18(6):364-71. doi: 10.1016/j.purol.2008.03.010. Epub 2008 May 15.
6
A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy.机器人辅助腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术与开放性耻骨后根治性前列腺切除术中阳性手术切缘的发生率及位置比较。
J Urol. 2007 Dec;178(6):2385-9; discussion 2389-90. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.008. Epub 2007 Oct 22.
7
Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in men older than 70 years of age with localized prostate cancer: comparison of morbidity, reconvalescence, and short-term clinical outcomes between younger and older men.70岁以上局限性前列腺癌男性患者的腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术:年轻与老年男性患者的发病率、康复情况及短期临床结局比较
Eur Urol. 2007 May;51(5):1341-8; discussion 1349. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.12.013. Epub 2006 Dec 14.
8
Comparison of early oncologic results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach.经腹膜外与经腹膜途径腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术的早期肿瘤学结果比较。
Eur Urol. 2004 Jul;46(1):50-4; discussion 54-6. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2004.04.013.
9
Outcome and complications of radical prostatectomy in patients with PSA <10 ng/ml: comparison between the retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic approach.前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)<10 ng/ml患者行根治性前列腺切除术的结果及并发症:耻骨后、会阴及腹腔镜入路的比较
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2002;5(4):285-90. doi: 10.1038/sj.pcan.4500605.
10
Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy - results of 200 consecutive cases in a Canadian medical institution.腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术——加拿大一家医疗机构200例连续病例的结果
Can J Urol. 2004 Apr;11(2):2172-85.

引用本文的文献

1
Incidence of Rectal Injury After Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.前列腺癌根治术后直肠损伤的发生率:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Eur Urol Open Sci. 2023 May 4;52:85-99. doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.03.017. eCollection 2023 Jun.
2
Ultrasound-guided posterior quadratus lumborum block for postoperative pain control after minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.超声引导下腰方肌后路阻滞用于微创根治性前列腺切除术后疼痛控制:一项随机、双盲、安慰剂对照试验
EXCLI J. 2022 Jan 27;21:335-343. doi: 10.17179/excli2021-4615. eCollection 2022.
3
Robotic surgery techniques to approach benign prostatic hyperplasia disease: A comprehensive literature review and the state of art.
用于治疗良性前列腺增生疾病的机器人手术技术:全面的文献综述及现状
Asian J Urol. 2021 Jan;8(1):81-88. doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2020.10.002. Epub 2020 Oct 23.
4
Clavien System Classification of Complications Developed following Laparoscopic Urological Operations Applied in our Clinic.我院应用的腹腔镜泌尿外科手术后并发症的Clavien系统分类
Sisli Etfal Hastan Tip Bul. 2019 Aug 27;53(3):228-239. doi: 10.14744/SEMB.2018.98700. eCollection 2019.
5
A comparison of perioperative outcome between robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience of a single institution.机器人辅助与腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术围手术期结局比较:单中心经验。
Int Braz J Urol. 2019 Jul-Aug;45(4):695-702. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0367.
6
Robotics and urologic reconstructive surgery.机器人技术与泌尿外科重建手术
Transl Androl Urol. 2018 Aug;7(4):545-557. doi: 10.21037/tau.2018.03.06.
7
Comparison of retropubic, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: who is the winner?经耻骨后、腹腔镜和机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术的比较:谁是赢家?
World J Urol. 2018 Apr;36(4):609-621. doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2174-1. Epub 2018 Jan 23.
8
Critical appraisal of literature comparing minimally invasive extraperitoneal and transperitoneal radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.比较微创腹膜外和经腹根治性前列腺切除术的文献的批判性评价:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Arab J Urol. 2017 Aug 31;15(4):267-279. doi: 10.1016/j.aju.2017.07.003. eCollection 2017 Dec.
9
Comparison of efficacy and safety of conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by the transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal procedure.经腹腔与腹膜外途径传统腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术的疗效与安全性比较。
Sci Rep. 2015 Oct 13;5:14442. doi: 10.1038/srep14442.
10
Prevalence and risk factors of bladder neck contracture after radical prostatectomy.根治性前列腺切除术后膀胱颈挛缩的患病率及危险因素
Korean J Urol. 2013 May;54(5):297-302. doi: 10.4111/kju.2013.54.5.297. Epub 2013 May 14.