Literature DB >> 27638369

Pathologic analysis of capsular and incisional denudation and positive margin status in the development of a robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy program.

Stephen B Williams1, D E Sutherland2, H A Frazier3, A Schwartz4, J D Engel3.   

Abstract

The aim of this study is to explore the use of pathologically confirmed capsular incision and denudation as a measure of adequacy of extirpation following robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). All patients who underwent RALP at the George Washington University Medical Center during the first 2 years of inception of the robotic prostatectomy program were included. All pathologic specimens were reviewed by a single pathologist. One hundred twenty-eight men who underwent RALP during the first 2 years were identified. Sixty-four patients underwent RALP during the first year (group 1) and all pathologic specimens were reviewed retrospectively. Sixty-four patients underwent RALP during the second year (group 2) after revision of our operative technique and all pathologic specimens were reviewed prospectively. Of patients in group 1, 18 (28%) had a positive surgical margin (PSM), and 18 (28%) with negative surgical margins were found to have capsular incision or denudation. In group 1, 32 (50%) patients had evidence of iatrogenic capsular violation. Group 2 consisted of 13 (20%) patients with a PSM and 9 (14%) margin-negative patients with capsular incision or denudation. Group 2 had a total of 22 (34%) patients with evidence of iatrogenic capsular violation. Overall reduction in positive margins was not statistically significant between the groups. Improvement in capsular incision/denudation rate and overall capsular violation between the two groups was statistically significant (P < 0.03 and <0.0055). Surgical margin status alone underestimates the overall quality of surgical resection after RALP because not all capsular violations result in a PSM. Surgeon-guided pathologic review in addition to intraoperative experience may improve oncologic success during the RALP learning curve.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Laparoscopic; Positive margins; Prostate cancer; Prostatectomy

Year:  2009        PMID: 27638369     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-009-0148-4

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


  10 in total

Review 1.  Pathologic assessment of the surgical specimen.

Authors:  J I Epstein
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.241

2.  Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Thomas E Ahlering; Douglas Skarecky; David Lee; Ralph V Clayman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in surgically treated prostate cancer: multi-institutional assessment of 5831 patients.

Authors:  Pierre I Karakiewicz; James A Eastham; Markus Graefen; Ilias Cagiannos; Phillip D Stricker; Eric Klein; Thomas Cangiano; Fritz H Schröder; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 2.649

4.  Robotic radical prostatectomy with the "Veil of Aphrodite" technique: histologic evidence of enhanced nerve sparing.

Authors:  Adnan T Savera; Sanjeev Kaul; Ketan Badani; Azadeh T Stark; Nikhil L Shah; Mani Menon
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-03-09       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Positive surgical margins in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: impact of learning curve on oncologic outcomes.

Authors:  Fatih Atug; Erik P Castle; Sudesh K Srivastav; Scott V Burgess; Raju Thomas; Rodney Davis
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-03-10       Impact factor: 20.096

6.  Potency, continence and complications in 3,477 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies.

Authors:  Shilajit D Kundu; Kimberly A Roehl; Scott E Eggener; Jo Ann V Antenor; Misop Han; William J Catalona
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Surgeon experience is strongly associated with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for all preoperative risk categories.

Authors:  Eric A Klein; Fernando J Bianco; Angel M Serio; James A Eastham; Michael W Kattan; J Edson Pontes; Andrew J Vickers; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-04-18       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Peter Swindle; James A Eastham; Makoto Ohori; Michael W Kattan; Thomas Wheeler; Norio Maru; Kevin Slawin; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Fernando J Bianco; Angel M Serio; James A Eastham; Deborah Schrag; Eric A Klein; Alwyn M Reuther; Michael W Kattan; J Edson Pontes; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2007-07-24       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Factors affecting erectile function after radical retropubic prostatectomy: results from 1620 consecutive patients.

Authors:  Rajinikanth Ayyathurai; Murugesan Manoharan; Alan M Nieder; Bruce Kava; Mark S Soloway
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2008-01-10       Impact factor: 5.588

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.