Menon Mani, Shrivastava Alok, Tewari Ashutosh
Vattikuti Urology Institute, The Josephine Ford Cancer Center, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan 48202, USA.
Urology. 2005 Nov;66(5 Suppl):101-4. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.06.008.
By 2015, prostate cancer will become the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men. Radical prostatectomy reduces disease-specific mortality in patients with localized prostate cancer; however, the invasiveness of surgery and its resultant side effects cause many men to seek other treatments. In 2000, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to open surgery; it has been refined recently by the addition of robotic technology. To examine the outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy and compare them with those from open and conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, we prospectively collected baseline demographic data on all patients undergoing surgery for prostate cancer over a 4-year period at our center. Urinary function and sexual function were evaluated using standardized criteria as well as a questionnaire preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 18 months after their procedure. Operative and postoperative outcomes were compared using values for open radical prostatectomy as the reference standard. A total of 100 men underwent open radical prostatectomy with conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (n = 50) and robotic radical prostatectomy (n = 500). The odds ratios for operative times, blood loss, postoperative pain, complications, and median times to urinary continence and resumption of sexual activity all were lower for robotic than for open or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. It appears safe to conclude that conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is a reasonable alternative to open radical prostatectomy in the surgical treatment of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. The incorporation of robotics may result in even better surgical outcomes than conventional laparoscopy. However, the surgical robot is expensive; few centers have access to the technology and even fewer have expertise in the technique. For robotic radical prostatectomy to become the standard of care for the treatment of localized prostate cancer will require economies of cost, dissemination of surgical expertise, and data from randomized trials.
到2015年,前列腺癌将成为男性中最常被诊断出的癌症。根治性前列腺切除术可降低局限性前列腺癌患者的疾病特异性死亡率;然而,手术的侵入性及其产生的副作用使许多男性寻求其他治疗方法。2000年,腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术作为开放性手术的一种微创替代方法出现;最近通过增加机器人技术对其进行了改进。为了研究机器人根治性前列腺切除术的结果并将其与开放性和传统腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术的结果进行比较,我们前瞻性地收集了本中心在4年期间所有接受前列腺癌手术患者的基线人口统计学数据。术前以及术后1、3、6、12和18个月,使用标准化标准以及问卷对患者的排尿功能和性功能进行评估。以开放性根治性前列腺切除术的值作为参考标准,比较手术和术后结果。共有100名男性接受了开放性根治性前列腺切除术,其中50例行传统腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术,500例行机器人根治性前列腺切除术。机器人手术在手术时间、失血量、术后疼痛、并发症以及恢复尿失禁和恢复性活动的中位时间方面的优势比均低于开放性或腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术。可以有把握地得出结论,在临床局限性前列腺癌患者的手术治疗中,传统腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术是开放性根治性前列腺切除术的合理替代方法。引入机器人技术可能会带来比传统腹腔镜手术更好的手术效果。然而,手术机器人价格昂贵;很少有中心能够获得这项技术,而且掌握该技术的专业人员更少。要使机器人根治性前列腺切除术成为局限性前列腺癌治疗的护理标准,需要降低成本、传播手术专业知识以及来自随机试验的数据。