Radical prostatectomy performed via robotic, transperitoneal and extraperitoneoscopic approaches: functional and early oncological outcomes.

Autor:	Rapoport L; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia., Yossepowitch O; Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv University, Israel., Shpot E; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia., Chinenov D; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia., Chernov Y; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia., Yurova M; Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia., Enikeev D; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Central European journal of urology [Cent European J Urol] 2018; Vol. 71 (4), pp. 378-385. Date of Electronic Publication: 2018 Oct 30.
DOI:	10.5173/ceju.2018.1739
Abstrakt:	Introduction: Oncological remission along with high postoperative functionality [continence and erectile function (EF)] are the main aspects of prostate cancer (PCa) treatment. The aim of this study was to compare functional and oncological treatment results achieved after a nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (RP) via transperitoneal (TPRP), extraperitoneal (EPRP) and robot-assisted (RARP) approach. Material and Methods: From March 2015 to March 2016, 507 RP were performed at the Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health (Moscow, Russia). A total of 264 patients with localized (cТ1а-2с) prostate cancer [prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <20 ng/ml, Gleason score ≤7], intact prostate capsule (according to MRI), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) ≥19 and a life expectancy >10 years were included into the retrospective study. All the surgeries were performed by a single surgeon. The outcomes were evaluated after urethral catheter removal and 3-6-12 months after RP. Results: Nerve preservation (NP) was performed for 153 patients without significant distinctions in time (р = 0.064) and blood loss (р = 0.073). The International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form (ICIQ-SF) score was lower for NP: 9.23 ±6.59 and 3.86 ±5.38 after 3 and 12 months respectively compared with continence after RP without nerve preservation (NP): 14.27 ±5.1 vs. 6.15 ±4.76 (р <0.001). Continent was 52.2% vs. 83.3% vs. 81.8% in TPRP, RARP and EPRP groups; р <0.001. IIEF-5 scores were 14.67 ±9.4, 4.2 ±4.26 and 4.0 ±2.07 after RARP, TPRP and EPRP respectively (р = 0.002). After 12 months the PSA: TPRP = 0.11 ±0.19, RARP = 0.03 ±0.05 and EPRP = 0.53 ±1.87 ng/ml (р <0.001). Outcomes depend on surgical approach and was better in the RARP-group (AUC = 0.768 ±0.034 (CI 95% 0,701-0.834; р <0.001). Conclusions: We suggest RARP with NP as a method of choice for treatment of prostate cancer in patients interested in preservation of EF and quality of life in general.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu