Global Robotics Institute, Florida Hospital Celebration Health, Celebration, Florida, USA.
J Endourol. 2010 Dec;24(12):2003-15. doi: 10.1089/end.2010.0295. Epub 2010 Oct 13.
To critically review perioperative outcomes, positive surgical margin (PSM) rates, and functional outcomes of several large series of retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic RP (LRP), and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) currently available in the literature.
A Medline database search was performed from November 1994 to May 2009, using medical subject heading search terms "prostatectomy" and "Outcome Assessment (Health Care)" and text words "retropubic," "robotic," and "laparoscopic." Only studies with a sample size of 250 or more patients were considered. Weighted means were calculated for all outcomes using the number of patients included in each study as the weighing factor.
We identified 30 articles for RRP, 14 for LRP, and 14 for RARP. The mean intraoperative and postoperative RRP transfusion rates for RRP, LRP, and RARP were 20.1%, 3.5%, and 1.4%, respectively. The weighted mean postoperative complication rates for RRP, LRP, and RARP were 10.3% (4.8% to 26.9%), 10.98% (8.9 to 27.7%), and 10.3% (4.3% to 15.7%), respectively. RARP revealed a mean overall PSM rate of 13.6%, whereas LRP and RRP yielded a PSM of 21.3% and 24%, respectively. The weighted mean continence rates at 12 month follow-up for RRP, LRP, and RARP were 79%, 84.8%, and 92%, respectively. The weighted mean potency rates for patients who underwent unilateral or bilateral nerve sparing, at 12 month follow-up, were 43.1% and 60.6% for RRP, 31.1% and 54% for LRP, and 59.9% and 93.5% for RARP.
RRP, LRP, and RARP performed in high-volume centers are safe options for treatment of patients with localized prostate cancer, presenting similar overall complication rates. LRP and RARP, however, are associated with decreased operative blood loss and decreased risk of transfusion when compared with RRP. Our analysis including high-volume centers also showed lower weighted mean PSM rates and higher continence and potency rates after RARP compared with RRP and LRP. However, the lack of randomized trials precludes definitive conclusions.
批判性地回顾目前文献中大量关于经耻骨后根治性前列腺切除术(RRP)、腹腔镜前列腺切除术(LRP)和机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术(RARP)的围手术期结果、切缘阳性率(PSM)和功能结果。
使用医学主题词搜索词“前列腺切除术”和“Outcome Assessment(Health Care)”以及文本词“retropubic”、“robotic”和“laparoscopic”,对 1994 年 11 月至 2009 年 5 月的 Medline 数据库进行了检索。仅纳入样本量为 250 例或更多患者的研究。使用每个研究中纳入的患者数量作为加权因子,计算所有结果的加权平均值。
我们确定了 30 项 RRP 研究、14 项 LRP 研究和 14 项 RARP 研究。RRP、LRP 和 RARP 的术中及术后平均输血率分别为 20.1%、3.5%和 1.4%。RRP、LRP 和 RARP 的术后加权平均并发症发生率分别为 10.3%(4.8%26.9%)、10.98%(8.9%27.7%)和 10.3%(4.3%~15.7%)。RARP 的总体 PSM 率为 13.6%,而 LRP 和 RARP 的 PSM 率分别为 21.3%和 24%。RRP、LRP 和 RARP 在 12 个月随访时的加权平均控尿率分别为 79%、84.8%和 92%。在 12 个月随访时,行单侧或双侧神经保留术的患者的加权平均勃起功能保留率,RRP 为 43.1%和 60.6%,LRP 为 31.1%和 54%,RARP 为 59.9%和 93.5%。
在高容量中心进行的 RRP、LRP 和 RARP 是治疗局限性前列腺癌患者的安全选择,具有相似的总体并发症发生率。与 RRP 相比,LRP 和 RARP 可减少术中失血和输血风险。我们的分析包括高容量中心,还显示 RARP 的加权平均 PSM 率较低,控尿和勃起功能保留率较高,而 RRP 和 LRP 则较低。然而,缺乏随机试验,无法得出明确的结论。