Good Daniel W, Stewart Grant D, Laird Alexander, Stolzenburg Jens-Uwe, Cahill Declan, McNeill S Alan
1 Department of Urology, Western General Hospital , NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, United Kingdom .
2 Edinburgh Urological Cancer Group, University of Edinburgh , Edinburgh, United Kingdom .
J Endourol. 2015 Aug;29(8):939-47. doi: 10.1089/end.2014.0810. Epub 2015 Feb 25.
There remains equipoise with regard to whether laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has any benefit over the other. Despite this, there is a trend for the increasing adoption of RARP at great cost to health services across the world. The aim was to critically analyze the learning curve and outcomes for LRP and RARP for two experience- and volume-matched surgeons who have completed the learning curve for LRP and RARP.
Two experience- and volume-matched LRP and RARP surgeons who have completed the learning curve were compared with respect to their learning curve and outcomes for RARP and LRP. There were 531 RARP and 550 LRPs analyzed from April 2003 until January 2012 at two relatively high-volume United Kingdom centers. Outcome measures included operative time, blood loss, complication rate (Clavien-Dindo grade III), positive surgical margin (PSM) rate, and early continence rate.
Learning curves for blood loss, operative times, and complication rate were similar between groups. The overall PSM rate and pT2 PSM rate learning curves were longer for RARP compared with LRP but shorter for early continence. Apical PSM showed no learning curve for RARP; however, a long learning curve for LRP and the rate was lower for RARP than for LRP (P=<0.001).
This study of RARP and LRP identified that both modalities had long learning curves. Despite the long learning curve for RARP, significant benefits in lower PSM rates and better early continence in comparison with LRP exist. There are benefits to patients with RARP over LRP, especially those linked to better apical dissection (apical PSM and early continence).
腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术(LRP)和机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术(RARP)相比,哪种手术更具优势仍存在争议。尽管如此,全球医疗服务机构仍在花费巨大成本越来越多地采用RARP。本研究旨在严格分析两位已完成LRP和RARP学习曲线、经验和手术量相匹配的外科医生进行LRP和RARP的学习曲线及手术结果。
比较两位已完成学习曲线、经验和手术量相匹配的LRP和RARP外科医生进行RARP和LRP的学习曲线及手术结果。2003年4月至2012年1月期间,在英国两个手术量相对较高的中心,共分析了531例RARP手术和550例LRP手术。观察指标包括手术时间、失血量、并发症发生率(Clavien-DindoⅢ级)、手术切缘阳性(PSM)率和早期控尿率。
两组间失血量、手术时间和并发症发生率的学习曲线相似。RARP的总体PSM率和pT2期PSM率学习曲线比LRP长,但早期控尿的学习曲线比LRP短。RARP的尖部PSM无学习曲线;然而,LRP的尖部PSM学习曲线较长,且RARP的尖部PSM率低于LRP(P<0.001)。
本研究对RARP和LRP的分析表明,两种手术方式都有较长的学习曲线。尽管RARP的学习曲线较长,但与LRP相比,其在降低PSM率和改善早期控尿方面有显著优势。RARP对患者的益处超过LRP,尤其是在更好的尖部解剖方面(尖部PSM和早期控尿)。