Froehner Michael, Koch Rainer, Leike Steffen, Novotny Vladimir, Twelker Lars, Wirth Manfred P
Department of Urology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany. Michael.Froehner @ uniklinikum-dresden.de
Urol Int. 2013;90(1):36-40. doi: 10.1159/000345320. Epub 2012 Dec 13.
The best technique of radical prostatectomy--open retropubic versus robot-assisted surgery--is a subject of controversy.
Between January 1st, 2007 and December 31st, 2011, 2,177 men underwent radical prostatectomy at our department. 252 (12%) cases were laparoscopic robot-assisted, the remainder open retropubic procedures. In Germany, certified prostate cancer centers are required to collect urinary tract-related outcome data after radical prostatectomy using the International Consultation of Incontinence Questionnaire Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms. The questionnaire data were used to compare both surgical approaches concerning the urinary tract-related outcome 1, 2 and 3 years postoperatively.
Neither the voiding score nor the incontinence score or the bother scale sum differed between the two cohorts at any of the measurement times.
Concerning continence recovery, in this series, there were no detectable differences between robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy.
根治性前列腺切除术的最佳技术——开放耻骨后手术与机器人辅助手术——是一个存在争议的话题。
在2007年1月1日至2011年12月31日期间，2177名男性在我们科室接受了根治性前列腺切除术。其中252例（12%）为腹腔镜机器人辅助手术，其余为开放耻骨后手术。在德国，认证的前列腺癌中心被要求使用国际尿失禁咨询委员会男性下尿路症状问卷收集根治性前列腺切除术后与尿路相关的结局数据。这些问卷数据用于比较两种手术方式在术后1年、2年和3年与尿路相关的结局。
在任何测量时间，两个队列之间的排尿评分、尿失禁评分或困扰量表总和均无差异。
关于控尿恢复，在本系列研究中，机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术与开放根治性前列腺切除术之间没有可检测到的差异。
