Literature DB >> 27000888

Incidence and location of positive surgical margins following open, pure laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy and its relation with neurovascular preservation: a single-institution experience.

W Villamil1, N Billordo Peres2, P Martinez2, C Giudice2, J Liyo2, P García Marchiñena2, A Jurado2, O Damia2.   

Abstract

To evaluate whether robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (dvRP) provides adequate local control of the disease, incidence of positive surgical margins (PSMs) obtained with dvRP was compared with that of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and with that of open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) performed in a single institution by the same surgeons. We also studied whether neurovascular bundle preservation modified PSM rates. The records were retrospectively reviewed from electronic medical data, and three groups of 100 patients were organized. Group 1 included 100 patients who underwent RRP prior to the incorporation of minimally invasive techniques. Group 2 included the first 100 patients who underwent LRP, and group 3 was made up of the first 100 patients who underwent dvRP. All surgical specimens were analyzed by the same pathologist. We used the technique described by Patel et al. for dvRP. LRP was performed using a five-trocar extraperitoneal approach as previously published by the authors. RRP was performed using retrograde dissection as described by Walsh et al. The final decision of preserving neurovascular bundles was made during surgery. Using D'Amico's risk classification, the dvRP group had a lower percentage of patients with low risk (dvRP versus LRP p = 0.017; dvRP versus RRP p = 0.0108). No statistically significant differences were found within high- and intermediate-risk groups. A higher percentage of patients with pT3 disease was found in the dvRP group compared with the RRP group (p = 0.0408). There were no statistically significant differences regarding PSMs among groups (RRP: 25, LRP: 14, dvRP: 18), although when we compared the total number of PSMs we found that the dvRP group had 18 PSMs versus 21 and 50 PSMs for LRP and RRP, respectively. All three groups had more PSMs located posterolaterally. There was a higher percentage of nerve-sparing procedures in the dvRP group (dvRP: 91 patients, LRP: 47 patients, RRP: 5 patients) (p < 0.0001). No statistically significant differences were found in the PSM rates between the three techniques analyzed. The number of nerve-sparing procedures in the dvRP group was statistically higher. However, this preservation did not modify PSM rates.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy; Radical prostatectomy; Robotic radical prostatectomy; Surgical margins

Year:  2012        PMID: 27000888     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-012-0335-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  27 in total

Review 1.  Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy, a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy for management of localized carcinoma of the prostate: experience of over 1100 cases.

Authors:  Mani Menon; Ashutosh Tewari; James O Peabody; Alok Shrivastava; Sanjeev Kaul; Akshay Bhandari; Ashok K Hemal
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.241

Review 2.  Evidence from robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Vincenzo Ficarra; Stefano Cavalleri; Giacomo Novara; Maurizio Aragona; Walter Artibani
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-06-30       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 3.  Oncological and functional results of open, robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does surgical approach and surgical experience matter?

Authors:  T R Herrmann; R Rabenalt; J U Stolzenburg; E N Liatsikos; F Imkamp; H Tezval; A J Gross; U Jonas; M Burchardt
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2007-03-13       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 4.  Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies.

Authors:  Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Walter Artibani; Andrea Cestari; Antonio Galfano; Markus Graefen; Giorgio Guazzoni; Bertrand Guillonneau; Mani Menon; Francesco Montorsi; Vipul Patel; Jens Rassweiler; Hendrik Van Poppel
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2009-01-25       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Pretreatment nomogram for prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; J Fondurulia; M H Chen; I Kaplan; C J Beard; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; A Wein; C N Coleman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 6.  Radical prostatectomy: does surgical technique influence margin control?

Authors:  Matthew T Gettman; Michael L Blute
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2010 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.498

7.  Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  M L Blute; D G Bostwick; E J Bergstralh; J M Slezak; S K Martin; C L Amling; H Zincke
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Pathologic outcome of laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Douglas M Dahl; Wenlei He; Ross Lazarus; W Scott McDougal; Chin-Lee Wu
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2006-12-04       Impact factor: 2.649

9.  Preoperative and intraoperative risk factors for side-specific positive surgical margins in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Fernando P Secin; Angel Serio; Fernando J Bianco; Nicholas T Karanikolas; Kentaro Kuroiwa; Andrew Vickers; Karim Touijer; Bertrand Guillonneau
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-11-03       Impact factor: 20.096

10.  Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations.

Authors:  P C Walsh; H Lepor; J C Eggleston
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 4.104

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Comparison of retropubic, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: who is the winner?

Authors:  Abbas Basiri; Jean Jmch de la Rosette; Shahin Tabatabaei; Henry H Woo; M Pilar Laguna; Hamidreza Shemshaki
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-01-23       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Prospective comparative trial on nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy using a robot-assisted versus laparoscopic technique: expectation versus satisfaction and impact on surgical margins.

Authors:  Alessandro Sciarra; Marco Frisenda; Martina Maggi; Fabio Massimo Magliocca; Antonio Ciardi; Valeria Panebianco; Ettore De Berardinis; Stefano Salciccia; Giovanni Battista Di Pierro; Alessandro Gentilucci; Francesco Del Giudice; Gian Maria Busetto; Antonio Tufano
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2021-05-07
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.