Laviana A A, Hu J C
Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA Institute of Urologic OncologyLos Angeles, CA, USA -
Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2013 Sep;65(3):161-70.
After Walsh's detailed anatomic description of pelvic anatomy in 1979, the retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) was the predominant surgical treatment for prostate cancer for more than twenty-five years. Over the past decade, however, the robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has grown increasingly popular and now is the most used surgical modality. Willingness to adopt this approach has been confounded by the novelty of technology and widespread marketing campaigns. In this article, we performed a literature search comparing radical retropubic prostatectomy to robotic-assisted radical prostetectomy with regard to perioperative, oncologic, and quality-of-life outcomes. We performed a PubMed literature search for a review of articles published between 2000 and 2013. Relevant articles were highlighted using the following keywords: robot or robotic prostatectomy, open or retropubic prostatectomy. Perioperative outcomes including decreased blood loss, fewer blood transfusions, and decreased length of hospital stay tend to favor RARP, while perioperative mortality is near negligible in both. Short-term positive surgical margins, prostate-specific antigen recurrence free survival, and need for salvage therapy following RARP are similar to RRP, though data at greater than ten years is limited. Preservation of urinary and sexual function and quality of life favored RARP, though this is dependent on surgeon technique. Finally, cost, though evolving, favors RRP. In our current state, most prostatectomies will continue to be perfromed robotically. Though there is evidence the robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy offers shorter lengths of stay, decreased intraoperative blood loss, faster return of sexual function and continence, there is a paucity on long-term oncologic outcomes. Rigorous, prospective randomized-controlled trials need to be performed to determine the long-term success of the robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy and whether it is cost-effective when its potential advantages are taken into consideration.
1979年沃尔什对盆腔解剖结构进行详细描述后,耻骨后根治性前列腺切除术(RRP)在超过25年的时间里一直是前列腺癌的主要外科治疗方法。然而,在过去十年中,机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术(RARP)越来越受欢迎,现在是最常用的手术方式。技术的新颖性和广泛的营销活动使得人们对采用这种方法的意愿变得复杂。在本文中,我们进行了一项文献检索,比较了耻骨后根治性前列腺切除术和机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术在围手术期、肿瘤学和生活质量方面的结果。我们在PubMed上进行了文献检索,以回顾2000年至2013年发表的文章。使用以下关键词突出显示相关文章:机器人或机器人前列腺切除术、开放或耻骨后前列腺切除术。围手术期结果包括失血减少、输血次数减少和住院时间缩短,这些方面RARP往往更具优势,而两者的围手术期死亡率都几乎可以忽略不计。RARP术后短期切缘阳性、无前列腺特异性抗原复发存活以及挽救治疗的需求与RRP相似,不过超过十年的数据有限。保留泌尿和性功能以及生活质量方面RARP更具优势,尽管这取决于外科医生的技术。最后,成本虽然在不断变化,但RRP更具优势。在目前的情况下,大多数前列腺切除术仍将通过机器人进行。虽然有证据表明机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术住院时间更短、术中失血减少、性功能和控尿功能恢复更快,但关于长期肿瘤学结果的研究较少。需要进行严格的前瞻性随机对照试验,以确定机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术的长期成功率,以及考虑其潜在优势时是否具有成本效益。