Literature DB >> 27637538

Impact of Partin nomogram on presurgical planning: intrafascial versus interfascial nerve sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Jeongyun Jeong1, Eun Yong Choi1, Dong Il Kang1,2, Dong-Hyeon Lee3, Isaac Yi Kim4.   

Abstract

We studied the impact of using the Partin nomogram in tailoring the nerve sparing approach during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. From July 2008 to July 2009, 168 patients underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with bilateral nerves spared. All of the first 70 patients (cohort I) had intrafascial nerve sparing, while the Partin nomogram was used to determine the nerve sparing approach in the next 98 patients (cohort II). In patients with a probability greater than 53% of having pathologically non-organ-confined disease, conventional interfascial nerve sparing was performed; otherwise, intrafascial nerve sparing was carried out. Preoperative patient demographics were similar between the two cohorts. In cohort II, 68 and 30 patients had the bilateral nerves spared intrafascially and interfascially, respectively. Overall, the prevalence of pT3 disease in cohort I was 24.3% and in cohort II was 21.4%. The positive surgical margin rate in cohort I was 15.7% while that in cohort II was 6.1%. There was no significant difference in positive surgical margin rate in organ-confined (pT2) disease between the two groups (7.5 and 5.2%). On the other hand, pT3 positive surgical margin rate was significantly reduced in cohort II (41.2 and 4.8%, P = 0.013). Using the Partin nomogram in deciding interfascial versus intrafascial nerve sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy gave a significant reduction of positive surgical margin rate in pT3 prostate cancers.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Partin nomogram; Prostatic neoplasm; Radical prostatectomy; Surgical margin

Year:  2011        PMID: 27637538     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-011-0247-x

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


  16 in total

1.  Robotic radical prostatectomy: a technique to reduce pT2 positive margins.

Authors:  Thomas E Ahlering; Louis Eichel; Robert A Edwards; David I Lee; Douglas W Skarecky
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 2.649

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

3.  Nerve sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: our technique.

Authors:  F Curto; J Benijts; A Pansadoro; S Barmoshe; J L Hoepffner; C Mugnier; T Piechaud; R Gaston
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-01-04       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  A comparison of outcomes for interfascial and intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Panagiotis Kallidonis; Minh Do; Anja Dietel; Tim Häfner; Robert Rabenalt; George Sakellaropoulos; Roman Ganzer; Uwe Paasch; Lars Christian Horn; Evangelos Liatsikos
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2010-06-22       Impact factor: 2.649

5.  Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients.

Authors:  Gerald W Hull; Farhang Rabbani; Farhat Abbas; Thomas M Wheeler; Michael W Kattan; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Apical margins after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: does technique matter?

Authors:  Khurshid A Guru; Adam E Perlmutter; Matthew J Sheldon; Zubair M Butt; Shaozeng Zhang; Wei Tan; Gregory Wilding; Hyung L Kim; James L Mohler
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 2.942

7.  Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005.

Authors:  Danil V Makarov; Bruce J Trock; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Leslie A Mangold; Patrick C Walsh; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: evolution of the technique and experience with 2400 cases.

Authors:  Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Panagiotis Kallidonis; Do Minh; Anja Dietel; Tim Häfner; Dimitris Dimitriou; Abdulrahman Al-Aown; Iason Kyriazis; Evangelos N Liatsikos
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 2.942

9.  Biochemical failure in men following radical retropubic prostatectomy: impact of surgical margin status and location.

Authors:  Joseph A Pettus; Christopher J Weight; Clinton J Thompson; Richard G Middleton; Robert A Stephenson
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Nerves at the ventral prostatic capsule contribute to erectile function: initial electrophysiological assessment in humans.

Authors:  Yasuhiro Kaiho; Haruo Nakagawa; Hideo Saito; Akihiro Ito; Shigeto Ishidoya; Seiichi Saito; Yoichi Arai
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2008-09-24       Impact factor: 20.096

View more
  1 in total

1.  Comparison of intrafascial and non-intrafascial radical prostatectomy for low risk localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Zhankui Zhao; Haizhou Zhu; Honglian Yu; Qingsheng Kong; Chengjuan Fan; Lin Meng; Chuanxin Liu; Xiegang Ding
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-12-14       Impact factor: 4.379

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.