• 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

膀胱癌根治性膀胱切除术中的淋巴结清扫:机器人手术与开放手术的双中心比较研究

Lymph node dissection during radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: A two-center comparative study of robotic versus open surgery.

作者信息

Sasaki Yutaro, Daizumoto Kei, Fukuta Kyotaro, Shiozaki Keito, Nishiyama Mitsuki, Utsunomiya Seiya, Kobayashi Saki, Seto Kosuke, Ueno Yoshiteru, Tomida Ryotaro, Kusuhara Yoshito, Fukawa Tomoya, Nakanishi Ryoichi, Yamaguchi Kunihisa, Yamamoto Yasuyo, Izaki Hirofumi, Takahashi Masayuki

机构信息

Department of Urology, Tokushima University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Tokushima, Japan.

Department of Urology, Tokushima Prefectural Central Hospital, Tokushima, Japan.

出版信息

Asian J Endosc Surg. 2023 Oct;16(4):724-730. doi: 10.1111/ases.13234. Epub 2023 Jul 25.

DOI:10.1111/ases.13234
PMID:37489628
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

This study was performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lymph node dissection (LND) during robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) compared with open radical cystectomy (ORC).

METHODS

From October 2003 to December 2021, 122 patients underwent LND during RARC and 103 patients underwent LND during ORC at Tokushima University Hospital and Tokushima Prefectural Central Hospital. We investigated the safety and efficacy of LND during RARC by comparing the surgical and oncological outcomes between the two groups.

RESULTS

The patients were significantly older in the RARC than the ORC group. The operative time was significantly shorter and the estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the RARC than the ORC group. Although the lymph node yield was significantly higher in the RARC than the ORC group, there was no significant difference in lymph node positivity between the groups. There was no significant difference in the incidence of local recurrence or distant metastasis between the two groups. The 5-year survival rates (overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and recurrence-free survival) were not different between the RARC and ORC groups.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that the surgical and oncological safety and efficacy of LND during RARC are greater than those of LND during ORC. We believe that LND during RARC is a higher-quality procedure than LND during ORC.

摘要

引言

本研究旨在评估机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术(RARC)期间淋巴结清扫(LND)与开放性根治性膀胱切除术(ORC)相比的安全性和有效性。

方法

2003年10月至2021年12月,德岛大学医院和德岛县立中央医院有122例患者在RARC期间接受了LND,103例患者在ORC期间接受了LND。我们通过比较两组的手术和肿瘤学结果,研究了RARC期间LND的安全性和有效性。

结果

RARC组患者的年龄显著大于ORC组。RARC组的手术时间显著更短,估计失血量显著更低。虽然RARC组的淋巴结获取量显著高于ORC组,但两组之间的淋巴结阳性率没有显著差异。两组之间的局部复发或远处转移发生率没有显著差异。RARC组和ORC组的5年生存率(总生存率、癌症特异性生存率和无复发生存率)没有差异。

结论

本研究表明,RARC期间LND的手术和肿瘤学安全性及有效性高于ORC期间的LND。我们认为,RARC期间的LND是比ORC期间的LND质量更高的手术。

相似文献

1
Lymph node dissection during radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: A two-center comparative study of robotic versus open surgery.膀胱癌根治性膀胱切除术中的淋巴结清扫:机器人手术与开放手术的双中心比较研究
Asian J Endosc Surg. 2023 Oct;16(4):724-730. doi: 10.1111/ases.13234. Epub 2023 Jul 25.
2
Comparing Open Radical Cystectomy and Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.开放性根治性膀胱切除术与机器人辅助腹腔镜根治性膀胱切除术的比较:一项随机临床试验。
Eur Urol. 2015 Jun;67(6):1042-1050. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.043. Epub 2014 Dec 8.
3
Systematic review and cumulative analysis of oncologic and functional outcomes after robot-assisted radical cystectomy.机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术的肿瘤学和功能结局的系统评价和累积分析。
Eur Urol. 2015 Mar;67(3):402-22. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.12.008. Epub 2015 Jan 2.
4
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.
5
Randomized Trial Comparing Open Radical Cystectomy and Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy: Oncologic Outcomes.随机对照试验比较开放性根治性膀胱切除术和机器人辅助腹腔镜根治性膀胱切除术:肿瘤学结果。
Eur Urol. 2018 Oct;74(4):465-471. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.04.030. Epub 2018 May 18.
6
Pathologic measures of quality compare favorably in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical cystectomy to open cystectomy cohorts: a National Cancer Database analysis.在接受机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术的患者中,质量的病理指标与开放性膀胱切除术队列相比具有优势:一项国家癌症数据库分析。
J Robot Surg. 2020 Aug;14(4):609-614. doi: 10.1007/s11701-019-01031-z. Epub 2019 Oct 3.
7
Perioperative Outcomes, Health Care Costs, and Survival After Robotic-assisted Versus Open Radical Cystectomy: A National Comparative Effectiveness Study.机器人辅助与开放根治性膀胱切除术的围手术期结局、医疗保健成本和生存:一项全国性的比较有效性研究。
Eur Urol. 2016 Jul;70(1):195-202. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.03.028. Epub 2016 Apr 28.
8
Robot-assisted Radical Cystectomy Versus Open Radical Cystectomy in Bladder Cancer Patients: A Multicentre Comparative Effectiveness Study.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治疗膀胱癌患者的比较:一项多中心的有效性研究。
Eur Urol. 2021 May;79(5):609-618. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.12.023. Epub 2021 Jan 11.
9
Association of Open vs Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy With Mortality and Perioperative Outcomes Among Patients With Bladder Cancer in Sweden.瑞典膀胱癌患者开放性与机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术与死亡率和围手术期结局的关联。
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Apr 1;5(4):e228959. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.8959.
10
Impact of lymph node dissection on surgical and oncological outcomes in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a multicenter retrospective study.淋巴结清扫对机器人辅助膀胱癌根治性切除术患者手术和肿瘤学结局的影响:一项多中心回顾性研究。
J Robot Surg. 2024 Mar 30;18(1):141. doi: 10.1007/s11701-024-01893-y.

引用本文的文献

1
A review and meta-analysis: comparing the efficacy of robot-assisted and open radical cystectomy in elderly bladder cancer patients.一项综述与荟萃分析:比较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在老年膀胱癌患者中的疗效
J Robot Surg. 2025 Apr 22;19(1):168. doi: 10.1007/s11701-025-02323-3.
2
Cutaneous ureterostomy following robot-assisted radical cystectomy: a multicenter comparative study of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal techniques.机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术后的皮输尿管造口术:经腹腔与经腹膜后技术的多中心对比研究。
World J Urol. 2024 Oct 23;42(1):591. doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-05300-x.
3
Retroperitoneal cutaneous ureterostomy following radical cystectomy: A multicenter comparative study of robotic versus open surgery.
根治性膀胱切除术后腹膜后皮肤输尿管造口术:机器人手术与开放手术的多中心比较研究
Int J Urol. 2024 Dec;31(12):1408-1413. doi: 10.1111/iju.15580. Epub 2024 Sep 10.