Suppr超能文献

广泛盆腔淋巴结清扫术和各种根治性前列腺切除术:是否需要盆腔引流?

Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy and various radical prostatectomy techniques: is pelvic drainage necessary?

机构信息

Klinik für Urologie, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland.

出版信息

BJU Int. 2013 May;111(6):963-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11681.x. Epub 2013 Jan 29.

Abstract

UNLABELLED

WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: The occurence of lymphoceles in patients after radical prostatectomy is well known (2-10%). It appears that patients undergoing open extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy develop more lymphoceles than patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with transperitoneal access. The present study investigates in a prospective randomized manner whether the time of drainage (1 vs 7 days) makes a difference or whether drainage is even necessary. The study data, collected in the same institution, are compared with the incidence of lymphocele in patients treated by robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether routine drainage is advisable after open extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) and retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) by measuring the incidence of lymphoceles and comparing these results with those of a series of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and ePLND.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 331 consecutive patients underwent ePLND and RRP or RARP. The first 132 patients underwent open ePLND and RRP and received two pelvic drains; these patients were prospectively randomized into two groups: group 1 (n = 66), in which the drains were shortened on postoperative (PO) days 3 and 5 and removed on PO day 7, and group 2 (n = 66), in which the drains were removed on PO day 1. The next 199 patients were assigned to two consecutive groups not receiving drainage: group 3 (n = 73) undergoing open ePLND and RRP, followed by group 4 (n = 126) treated by transperitoneal robot-assisted ePLND and RARP. All patients had ultrasonographic controls 5 and 10 days and 3 and 12 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Lymphoceles were detected in 6.6% of all patients, 3.3% of whom were asymptomatic and 3.3% of whom were symptomatic. Symptomatic lymphoceles were detected in 0% of group 1, 8% of group 2, 7% of group 3 and 1% of group 4, with groups 2 and 3 differing significantly from group 4 (P < 0.05). In total, 5% of all patients undergoing open RRP (groups 1-3) had symptomatic lymphoceles vs 1% of patients undergoing RARP (group 4) (P = 0.06). Nodal-positive patients had significantly more symptomatic lymphoceles than nodal-negative patients (10% vs 2%) (P < 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Symptomatic lymphoceles occur less frequently after open RRP and pelvic drainage over 7 days than after open RRP and pelvic drainage over 1 day or without drainage. Patients undergoing RARP without drainage had significantly fewer lymphoceles than patients receiving open RRP without drainage.

摘要

目的

通过测量淋巴结囊肿的发生率,探讨开放式广泛盆腔淋巴结清扫术(ePLND)和经耻骨后根治性前列腺切除术(RRP)后常规引流是否合理,并将这些结果与机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术(RARP)和 ePLND 系列进行比较。

方法

共 331 例连续患者行 ePLND 和 RRP 或 RARP。前 132 例患者行开放式 ePLND 和 RRP,接受 2 个盆腔引流管;这些患者前瞻性随机分为两组:组 1(n = 66)引流管于术后(PO)第 3 和 5 天缩短,并于 PO 第 7 天拔除;组 2(n = 66)引流管于 PO 第 1 天拔除。接下来的 199 例患者分为两组,未接受引流:组 3(n = 73)行开放式 ePLND 和 RRP,随后组 4(n = 126)行经腹腔机器人辅助 ePLND 和 RARP。所有患者均于术后 5 天、10 天、3 个月和 12 个月进行超声检查。

结果

所有患者中,淋巴结囊肿发生率为 6.6%,其中 3.3%无症状,3.3%有症状。组 1 无症状淋巴结囊肿发生率为 0%,组 2 为 8%,组 3 为 7%,组 4 为 1%,组 2 和组 3 与组 4 差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。在所有接受开放式 RRP 的患者中(组 1-3),有症状的淋巴结囊肿发生率为 5%,而接受 RARP 的患者中为 1%(组 4)(P = 0.06)。淋巴结阳性患者的有症状淋巴结囊肿发生率明显高于淋巴结阴性患者(10%比 2%)(P < 0.02)。

结论

与 1 天内或无引流的开放式 RRP 和盆腔引流相比,开放式 RRP 和 7 天内的盆腔引流后,有症状的淋巴结囊肿发生率较低。无引流的 RARP 患者的淋巴结囊肿发生率明显低于接受无引流的开放式 RRP 的患者。

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