Section of Laparoscopic and Robotic Urologic Surgery, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA.
Urology. 2010 Sep;76(3):754-8. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.03.058. Epub 2010 Jun 19.
To present comparative outcomes among matched patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) or laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) by a single surgeon at a single institution.
Between March 2002 and August 2009, a retrospective review of 261 consecutive patients who underwent LPN (n = 186) or RPN (n = 75) by a single surgeon was performed. Patients were matched for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, and tumor size, side, and location. Perioperative outcomes were compared.
A matched cohort of 150 patients who underwent RPN (n = 75) or LPN (n = 75) were compared. There was no significant difference between the 2 cohorts with respect to patient age (P = .17), BMI (P = .68), ASA score (P = .96), preoperative estimated glomerulofiltration rate (eGFR; P = .54), or tumor size (P = .17). Mean operative time for RPN was 200 vs 197 minutes for LPN (P = .75). Mean estimated blood loss (EBL) was higher in the RPN cohort (323 vs 222 mL, P = .01). There was no significant difference with respect to warm ischemia time (18.2 minutes vs 20.3 minutes, P = .27), length of hospitalization (P = .84), percent change in eGFR (P = .80), or adverse events (P = .52). All surgical margins were negative.
Although initial surgical experience with RPN was included in this study and compared with a vast experience in LPN by the same surgeon, RPN offers at least comparable outcomes to LPN.
介绍由同一位外科医生在同一机构进行的机器人辅助部分肾切除术(RPN)与腹腔镜部分肾切除术(LPN)的匹配患者的比较结果。
回顾性分析 2002 年 3 月至 2009 年 8 月期间由同一位外科医生进行的 261 例连续接受 LPN(n = 186)或 RPN(n = 75)治疗的患者。患者按年龄、性别、体重指数(BMI)、美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)评分和肿瘤大小、侧别和位置进行匹配。比较围手术期结果。
比较了 150 例接受 RPN(n = 75)或 LPN(n = 75)治疗的匹配患者队列。两组患者在年龄(P =.17)、BMI(P =.68)、ASA 评分(P =.96)、术前估算肾小球滤过率(eGFR;P =.54)或肿瘤大小(P =.17)方面无显著差异。RPN 组的平均手术时间为 200 分钟,LPN 组为 197 分钟(P =.75)。RPN 组的估计失血量(EBL)更高(323 与 222 mL,P =.01)。两组间热缺血时间(18.2 分钟与 20.3 分钟,P =.27)、住院时间(P =.84)、eGFR 百分比变化(P =.80)或不良事件(P =.52)无显著差异。所有手术切缘均为阴性。
尽管本研究纳入了 RPN 的初始手术经验,并与同一位外科医生的大量 LPN 经验进行了比较,但 RPN 至少提供了与 LPN 相当的结果。