Suppr超能文献

微创与开放性根治性前列腺切除术的比较疗效

Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy.

作者信息

Hu Jim C, Gu Xiangmei, Lipsitz Stuart R, Barry Michael J, D'Amico Anthony V, Weinberg Aaron C, Keating Nancy L

机构信息

Division of Urologic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 45 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

出版信息

JAMA. 2009 Oct 14;302(14):1557-64. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1451.

Abstract

CONTEXT

Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) has diffused rapidly despite limited data on outcomes and greater costs compared with open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP).

OBJECTIVE

To determine the comparative effectiveness of MIRP vs RRP.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Population-based observational cohort study using US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare linked data from 2003 through 2007. We identified men with prostate cancer who underwent MIRP (n = 1938) vs RRP (n = 6899).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We compared postoperative 30-day complications, anastomotic stricture 31 to 365 days postoperatively, long-term incontinence and erectile dysfunction more than 18 months postoperatively, and postoperative use of additional cancer therapies, a surrogate for cancer control.

RESULTS

Among men undergoing prostatectomy, use of MIRP increased from 9.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1%-10.5%) in 2003 to 43.2% (95% CI, 39.6%-46.9%) in 2006-2007. Men undergoing MIRP vs RRP were more likely to be recorded as Asian (6.1% vs 3.2%), less likely to be recorded as black (6.2% vs 7.8%) or Hispanic (5.6% vs 7.9%), and more likely to live in areas with at least 90% high school graduation rates (50.2% vs 41.0%) and with median incomes of at least $60,000 (35.8% vs 21.5%) (all P < .001). In propensity score-adjusted analyses, MIRP vs RRP was associated with shorter length of stay (median, 2.0 vs 3.0 days; P<.001) and lower rates of blood transfusions (2.7% vs 20.8%; P < .001), postoperative respiratory complications (4.3% vs 6.6%; P = .004), miscellaneous surgical complications (4.3% vs 5.6%; P = .03), and anastomotic stricture (5.8% vs 14.0%; P < .001). However, MIRP vs RRP was associated with an increased risk of genitourinary complications (4.7% vs 2.1%; P = .001) and diagnoses of incontinence (15.9 vs 12.2 per 100 person-years; P = .02) and erectile dysfunction (26.8 vs 19.2 per 100 person-years; P = .009). Rates of use of additional cancer therapies did not differ by surgical procedure (8.2 vs 6.9 per 100 person-years; P = .35).

CONCLUSION

Men undergoing MIRP vs RRP experienced shorter length of stay, fewer respiratory and miscellaneous surgical complications and strictures, and similar postoperative use of additional cancer therapies but experienced more genitourinary complications, incontinence, and erectile dysfunction.

摘要

背景

尽管与开放性耻骨后根治性前列腺切除术(RRP)相比,微创根治性前列腺切除术(MIRP)的疗效数据有限且成本更高,但该手术仍迅速普及。

目的

确定MIRP与RRP的相对疗效。

设计、地点和患者:基于人群的观察性队列研究,使用2003年至2007年美国监测、流行病学和最终结果医疗保险链接数据。我们确定了接受MIRP(n = 1938)与RRP(n = 6899)的前列腺癌男性患者。

主要结局指标

我们比较了术后30天并发症、术后31至365天吻合口狭窄、术后18个月以上的长期尿失禁和勃起功能障碍,以及术后使用额外癌症治疗的情况(作为癌症控制的替代指标)。

结果

在接受前列腺切除术的男性中,MIRP的使用比例从2003年的9.2%(95%置信区间[CI],8.1%-10.5%)增至2006 - 2007年的43.2%(95%CI,39.6%-46.9%)。接受MIRP与RRP的男性更有可能被记录为亚洲人(6.1%对3.2%),不太可能被记录为黑人(6.2%对7.8%)或西班牙裔(5.6%对7.9%),且更有可能居住在高中毕业生比例至少为90%的地区(50.2%对41.0%)以及中位数收入至少为6万美元的地区(35.8%对21.5%)(所有P <.001)。在倾向评分调整分析中,与RRP相比,MIRP与住院时间缩短相关(中位数,2.0天对3.0天;P<.001)、输血率较低(2.7%对20.8%;P <.001)、术后呼吸并发症较少(4.3%对6.6%;P =.004)、其他手术并发症较少(4.3%对5.6%;P =.03)以及吻合口狭窄较少(5.8%对14.0%;P <.001)。然而,与RRP相比,MIRP与泌尿生殖系统并发症风险增加相关(4.7%对2.1%;P =.001)以及尿失禁诊断率(每100人年15.9例对12.2例;P =.02)和勃起功能障碍诊断率(每100人年26.8例对19.2例;P =.009)增加。额外癌症治疗的使用率在手术方式上无差异(每100人年8.2例对6.9例;P =.35)。

结论

与接受RRP的男性相比,接受MIRP的男性住院时间更短、呼吸和其他手术并发症及狭窄更少、术后额外癌症治疗的使用情况相似,但泌尿生殖系统并发症、尿失禁和勃起功能障碍更多。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验