Suppr超能文献

机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术(RARC)与开放性根治性膀胱切除术(ORC)的围手术期并发症及肿瘤学安全性

Perioperative complications and oncological safety of robot-assisted (RARC) vs. open radical cystectomy (ORC).

作者信息

Niegisch Günter, Albers Peter, Rabenalt Robert

机构信息

Department of Urology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany.

Department of Urology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany.

出版信息

Urol Oncol. 2014 Oct;32(7):966-74. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.03.023. Epub 2014 Jul 10.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To assess the surgical and oncological outcome of robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) compared with open radical cystectomy (ORC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Clinical data of 64 patients undergoing RARC between August 2010 and August 2013 were prospectively documented and retrospectively compared with 79 patients undergoing ORC between August 2008 and August 2013 at a single academic institution. Perioperative results, surgical margins status, and nodal yield after RARC and ORC were compared using Mann-Whitney U test (continuous variables) and chi-square test (categorical variables). Additional age-stratified analysis was performed in elderly patients (≥75 y). To avoid inference errors by multiple testing, P-values were adjusted using Bonferroni׳s correction.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics of both cohorts were balanced. RARC patients had significantly less blood loss (RARC: 300 [interquartile range {IQR}: 200-500]ml; perioperative transfusion rate: 0 [IQR: 0-2] red packed blood cells [RPBCs]; ORC: 800 [IQR: 500-1200]ml, P<0.01; transfusion rate: 3 [IQR: 2-4] RPBCs, P<0.01), and hospital stay of RARC patients was reduced by 20% (RARC: 13 [IQR: 9-17]d, ORC: 16 [IQR: 13-21]d, P< 0.01). A total of 55 patients who underwent RARC and 59 patients who underwent ORC were eligible for analysis of oncological surrogates "surgical margin status" and "lymph-node yield" as well as for survival data. No differences between patients undergoing RARC or ORC were observed. In elderly patients (≥75 y; RARC: 17 patients, ORC: 28 patients), decreased intraoperative blood loss (RARC: 300 [IQR: 100-475]ml; ORC: 800 [IQR: 400-1300]ml, P<0.01) and lower transfusion rate (RARC: 0 [IQR: 0-1] RPBCs; ORC: 4 [IQR: 2-5] RPBCs, P<0.01) were observed in the robotic group. Major limitations of this study are the retrospective study design and a potential selection bias.

CONCLUSIONS

RARC provides significant advantages compared with ORC regarding blood loss and postoperative recovery, whereas surgical and oncological outcomes are not different.

摘要

目的

评估机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术(RARC)与开放性根治性膀胱切除术(ORC)的手术及肿瘤学结局。

患者与方法

前瞻性记录2010年8月至2013年8月期间接受RARC的64例患者的临床资料,并与2008年8月至2013年8月期间在同一学术机构接受ORC的79例患者进行回顾性比较。采用Mann-Whitney U检验(连续变量)和卡方检验(分类变量)比较RARC和ORC后的围手术期结果、手术切缘状态及淋巴结获取情况。对老年患者(≥75岁)进行了额外的年龄分层分析。为避免多重检验导致的推断错误,使用Bonferroni校正对P值进行调整。

结果

两组队列的基线特征均衡。RARC患者的失血量显著更少(RARC:300[四分位间距{IQR}:200 - 500]ml;围手术期输血率:0[IQR:0 - 2]单位红细胞悬液[RPBCs];ORC:800[IQR:500 - 1200]ml,P<0.01;输血率:3[IQR:2 - 4]单位RPBCs,P<0.01),且RARC患者的住院时间缩短了20%(RARC:13[IQR:9 - 17]天,ORC:16[IQR:13 - 21]天,P<0.01)。共有55例接受RARC的患者和59例接受ORC的患者符合分析肿瘤学替代指标“手术切缘状态”和“淋巴结获取情况”以及生存数据的条件。未观察到接受RARC或ORC的患者之间存在差异。在老年患者(≥75岁;RARC:17例患者,ORC:28例患者)中,机器人手术组术中失血量减少(RARC:300[IQR:100 - 475]ml;ORC:800[IQR:400 - 1300]ml,P<0.01)且输血率更低(RARC:0[IQR:0 - 1]单位RPBCs;ORC:4[IQR:2 - 5]单位RPBCs,P<0.01)。本研究的主要局限性是回顾性研究设计和潜在的选择偏倚。

结论

与ORC相比,RARC在失血量和术后恢复方面具有显著优势,而手术及肿瘤学结局并无差异。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验