Tozawa Keiichi, Yasui Takahiro, Umemoto Yukihiro, Mizuno Kentaro, Okada Atsushi, Kawai Noriyasu, Takahashi Satoru, Kohri Kenjiro
Department of Nephro-urology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan.
Int J Urol. 2014 Oct;21(10):976-9. doi: 10.1111/iju.12492. Epub 2014 Jun 10.
To compare the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, including the frequency and location of positive surgical margins.
The study cohort comprised 708 consecutive male patients with clinically localized prostate cancer who underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (n = 551) or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (n = 157) between January 1999 and September 2012. Operative time, estimated blood loss, complications, and positive surgical margins frequency were compared between laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
There were no significant differences in age or body mass index between the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy patients. Prostate-specific antigen levels, Gleason sum and clinical stage of the robot-assisted radical prostatectomy patients were significantly higher than those of the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy patients. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy patients suffered significantly less bleeding (P < 0.05). The overall frequency of positive surgical margins was 30.6% (n = 167; 225 sites) in the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy group and 27.5% (n = 42; 58 sites) in the robot-assisted radical prostatectomy group. In the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy group, positive surgical margins were detected in the apex (52.0%), anterior (5.3%), posterior (5.3%) and lateral regions (22.7%) of the prostate, as well as in the bladder neck (14.7%). In the robot-assisted radical prostatectomy patients, they were observed in the apex, anterior, posterior, and lateral regions of the prostate in 43.0%, 6.9%, 25.9% and 15.5% of patients, respectively, as well as in the bladder neck in 8.6% of patients.
Positive surgical margin distributions after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy are significantly different. The only disadvantage of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is the lack of tactile feedback. Thus, the robotic surgeon needs to take this into account to minimize the risk of positive surgical margins.
比较腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术和机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术的手术效果,包括手术切缘阳性的频率和部位。
研究队列包括1999年1月至2012年9月期间连续接受腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术(n = 551)或机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术(n = 157)的708例临床局限性前列腺癌男性患者。比较腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术和机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术的手术时间、估计失血量、并发症及手术切缘阳性频率。
腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术患者与机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术患者在年龄或体重指数方面无显著差异。机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术患者的前列腺特异性抗原水平、Gleason评分和临床分期显著高于腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术患者。机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术患者的出血明显较少(P < 0.05)。腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术组手术切缘阳性的总体频率为30.6%(n = 167;225个部位),机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术组为27.5%(n = 42;58个部位)。在腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术组中,前列腺尖部(52.0%)、前部(5.3%)、后部(5.3%)和外侧区域(22.7%)以及膀胱颈部(14.7%)检测到手术切缘阳性。在机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术患者中,分别在43.0%、6.9%、25.9%和15.5%的患者前列腺尖部、前部、后部和外侧区域以及8.6%的患者膀胱颈部观察到手术切缘阳性。
机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术和腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术后手术切缘阳性的分布存在显著差异。机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术的唯一缺点是缺乏触觉反馈。因此,机器人手术医生需要考虑到这一点,以尽量降低手术切缘阳性的风险。