• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

老年患者机器人辅助与开放性根治性膀胱切除术的初步疗效比较

Preliminary Comparative Effectiveness of Robotic Versus Open Radical Cystectomy in Elderly Patients.

作者信息

Winters Brian R, Bremjit Prashoban J, Gore John L, Lin Daniel W, Ellis William J, Dalkin Bruce L, Porter Michael P, Harper Jonathan D, Wright Jonathan L

机构信息

1 Department of Urology, University of Washington School of Medicine , Seattle, Washington.

2 School of Medicine, University of Washington , Seattle, Washington.

出版信息

J Endourol. 2016 Feb;30(2):212-7. doi: 10.1089/end.2015.0457. Epub 2015 Oct 8.

DOI:10.1089/end.2015.0457
PMID:26414964
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) remains highly morbid despite improving surgical techniques. As the median age of diagnosis is 73, many patients are elderly at the time of cystectomy. We compare perioperative surgical outcomes in elderly patients undergoing robotic vs open radical cystectomy (RC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients >75 years at time of RC were identified. Demographic, clinicopathologic, and perioperative variables were examined. Estimated blood loss (EBL) and length of stay (LOS) data were collected with multivariate linear regression analysis performed to assess whether technique was independently associated with outcomes.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven patients >75 years of age underwent cystectomy for MIBC (58 open, 29 robotic). Mean age was 79.6 (±3.2) and 79.2 (±3.5) for open and robotic groups, respectively (p = 0.64). There were no significant differences in baseline comorbidities, clinical or pathologic stage, or use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The mean number of lymph nodes removed was similar (p = 0.08). Robotic cystectomy had significantly longer mean OR times (p < 0.001). On multivariate analyses, robotic surgery was associated with -389cc less EBL (95% CI -547 to -230, p < 0.001) and a -1.5-day-shortened LOS (95%CI -2.9 to -0.2, p = 0.02) compared with open surgery. There were no significant differences in surgical complications or 90-day readmission rates between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic cystectomy is safe and feasible in an elderly population. We observed longer OR times with robotic surgery, but with decreased EBL, shorter hospital stays, and comparable complication and readmission rates with open RC. Larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings.

摘要

引言

尽管手术技术不断改进,但肌肉浸润性膀胱癌(MIBC)的治疗仍然具有很高的发病率。由于诊断的中位年龄为73岁,许多患者在膀胱切除术时已属老年。我们比较了接受机器人辅助与开放根治性膀胱切除术(RC)的老年患者的围手术期手术结果。

材料与方法

确定在RC时年龄大于75岁的患者。检查人口统计学、临床病理和围手术期变量。收集估计失血量(EBL)和住院时间(LOS)数据,并进行多变量线性回归分析,以评估手术技术是否与结果独立相关。

结果

87例年龄大于75岁的患者因MIBC接受了膀胱切除术(58例开放手术,29例机器人辅助手术)。开放手术组和机器人辅助手术组的平均年龄分别为79.6(±3.2)岁和79.2(±3.5)岁(p = 0.64)。基线合并症、临床或病理分期或新辅助化疗的使用情况无显著差异。切除的淋巴结平均数量相似(p = 0.08)。机器人辅助膀胱切除术的平均手术时间明显更长(p < 0.001)。多变量分析显示,与开放手术相比,机器人辅助手术的EBL减少389cc(95%CI -547至-230,p < 0.001),LOS缩短1.5天(95%CI -2.9至-0.2,p = 0.02)。两组的手术并发症或90天再入院率无显著差异。

结论

机器人辅助膀胱切除术在老年人群中是安全可行的。我们观察到机器人辅助手术的手术时间更长,但EBL减少,住院时间缩短,且与开放RC的并发症和再入院率相当。需要更大规模的前瞻性研究来证实这些发现。

相似文献

1
Preliminary Comparative Effectiveness of Robotic Versus Open Radical Cystectomy in Elderly Patients.老年患者机器人辅助与开放性根治性膀胱切除术的初步疗效比较
J Endourol. 2016 Feb;30(2):212-7. doi: 10.1089/end.2015.0457. Epub 2015 Oct 8.
2
Surgical control and margin status after robotic and open cystectomy in high-risk cases: Caution or equivalence?高危病例中行机器人辅助与开放性膀胱切除术后的手术控制及切缘状态:谨慎对待还是同等看待?
World J Urol. 2017 Apr;35(4):657-663. doi: 10.1007/s00345-016-1915-2. Epub 2016 Aug 5.
3
Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted vs. open radical cystectomy.机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术与开放性根治性膀胱切除术的比较疗效
Urol Oncol. 2018 Mar;36(3):88.e1-88.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.09.018. Epub 2017 Dec 23.
4
Robotic vs open radical cystectomy: prospective comparison of perioperative outcomes and pathological measures of early oncological efficacy.机器人辅助与开放性根治性膀胱切除术:围手术期结局及早期肿瘤学疗效病理指标的前瞻性比较
BJU Int. 2008 Jan;101(1):89-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07212.x. Epub 2007 Sep 20.
5
Robotic or open radical cystectomy, which is safer? A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.机器人辅助或开放性根治性膀胱切除术,哪种更安全?一项关于比较研究的系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Endourol. 2014 Oct;28(10):1215-23. doi: 10.1089/end.2014.0033. Epub 2014 Sep 3.
6
Utilization Trends and Short-term Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer.机器人辅助与开放性根治性膀胱切除术治疗膀胱癌的应用趋势及短期疗效
Urology. 2017 May;103:117-123. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.10.067. Epub 2017 Feb 8.
7
Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Radical Cystectomy vs Conventional Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy for Patient with Bladder Urothelial Carcinoma: Matched Case-Control Analysis.腹腔镜单孔根治性膀胱切除术与传统腹腔镜根治性膀胱切除术治疗膀胱尿路上皮癌患者的配对病例对照分析
J Endourol. 2017 Dec;31(12):1259-1268. doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0525.
8
National comparison of oncologic quality indicators between open and robotic-assisted radical cystectomy.开放性与机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术的肿瘤学质量指标的全国性比较。
Urol Oncol. 2016 Oct;34(10):431.e9-431.e15. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.05.005. Epub 2016 Jun 2.
9
Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes Between Open and Robotic Radical Cystectomy: A Population-Based Analysis.开放和机器人根治性膀胱切除术围手术期结局的比较:基于人群的分析。
J Endourol. 2018 Aug;32(8):701-709. doi: 10.1089/end.2018.0313. Epub 2018 Jul 2.
10
Radical cystectomy in women: Impact of the robot-assisted versus open approach on surgical outcomes.女性根治性膀胱切除术:机器人辅助与开放手术方式对手术结果的影响。
Urol Oncol. 2020 Apr;38(4):247-254. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.12.005. Epub 2020 Jan 14.

引用本文的文献

1
Feasibility and safety of laparoscopic radical cystectomy for male octogenarians with muscle-invasive bladder cancer.腹腔镜根治性膀胱切除术治疗肌层浸润性膀胱癌的 80 岁以上男性患者的可行性和安全性。
BMC Cancer. 2024 Jan 31;24(1):159. doi: 10.1186/s12885-024-11816-7.
2
Bayesian network analysis of open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical cystectomy for bladder cancer.基于贝叶斯网络的膀胱癌开放式、腹腔镜式和机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术分析。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Dec 24;99(52):e23645. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000023645.
3
Perioperative outcomes and safety of robotic vs open cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 12,640 cases.
机器人与开放膀胱切除术的围手术期结局和安全性:12640 例病例的系统评价和荟萃分析。
World J Urol. 2021 Jun;39(6):1733-1746. doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03385-8. Epub 2020 Jul 30.
4
Comparison of perioperative complications and health-related quality of life between robot-assisted and open radical cystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.机器人辅助与开放性根治性膀胱切除术围手术期并发症和健康相关生活质量的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Int J Urol. 2019 Aug;26(8):760-774. doi: 10.1111/iju.14005. Epub 2019 May 13.
5
Robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer in adults.成人膀胱癌的机器人辅助与开放性根治性膀胱切除术
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 24;4(4):CD011903. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011903.pub2.
6
Management of pelvic organ prolapse in the elderly - is there a role for robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy?老年盆腔器官脱垂的管理——机器人辅助骶骨阴道固定术有作用吗?
Robot Surg. 2016 Oct 17;3:65-73. doi: 10.2147/RSRR.S81584. eCollection 2016.
7
Open versus robot-assisted radical cystectomy: 30-day perioperative comparison and predictors for cost-to-patient, complication, and readmission.开放与机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术:30 天围手术期比较以及对患者费用、并发症和再入院的预测因素。
J Robot Surg. 2019 Feb;13(1):129-140. doi: 10.1007/s11701-018-0832-3. Epub 2018 Jun 8.
8
Advances in surgical management of muscle invasive bladder cancer.肌肉浸润性膀胱癌外科治疗进展
Indian J Urol. 2017 Apr-Jun;33(2):106-110. doi: 10.4103/0970-1591.203416.
9
Clinical and patient-reported outcomes of SPARE - a randomised feasibility study of selective bladder preservation versus radical cystectomy.SPARE的临床及患者报告结局——一项关于选择性膀胱保留术与根治性膀胱切除术的随机可行性研究
BJU Int. 2017 Nov;120(5):639-650. doi: 10.1111/bju.13900. Epub 2017 May 29.
10
How to optimally manage elderly bladder cancer patients?如何对老年膀胱癌患者进行最佳管理?
Transl Androl Urol. 2016 Oct;5(5):683-691. doi: 10.21037/tau.2016.04.08.