Literature DB >> 33426579

LigaSure versus the standard technique (Hem-o-lok clips) for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a propensity score-matched study.

Shuzo Hamamoto1, Mostafa AbdelRazek2,3, Taku Naiki2, Kazumi Taguchi2, Toshiki Etani2, Shoichiro Iwatsuki2, Ryosuke Ando2, Atsushi Okada2, Noriyasu Kawai2, Takahiro Yasui2.   

Abstract

The aim of the study is to compare the utility and efficacy of the LigaSure system and standard surgical clips for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. The medical records of 473 patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy between May 2011 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed. The patients were divided into the LigaSure (n = 125) and Hem-o-lok (n = 348) groups, based on the device used to ligate the vascular pedicle. Owing to differences in the patient characteristics, a 1:2 propensity score matching was performed. In the final matched cohort, 375 patients were included for analysis. The median initial prostate-specific antigen level was not significantly different between the two groups. The median surgical and console times were significantly shorter for the LigaSure group than for the Hem-o-lok group (p < 0.001 and 0.003, respectively). The number of specimens with positive surgical margins was significantly lower in the LigaSure group than in the Hem-o-lok group (24.8 vs 40.8%, p = 0.002). The number of specimens with positive surgical margins for pathological stage T2 cases was also significantly lower in the LigaSure group than in the Hem-o-lok group (17.0 vs 37.5%, p < 0.001). However, non-focal positive surgical margins and biochemical recurrence-free survival rates at 1 year postoperatively were not significantly different (11.2 vs 18.4%, p = 0.075 and 91.2 vs 92.8%, p = 0.565, respectively). The LigaSure system was associated with fewer positive surgical margins and shorter operation time, indicating that it could be a useful alternative to Hem-o-lok clips for controlling the prostatic pedicle in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, despite its high costs.

Entities:  

Keywords:  LigaSure; Positive surgical margin; Propensity score; Prostate cancer; Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; Surgical clip

Year:  2021        PMID: 33426579     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-020-01180-6

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


  24 in total

1.  Use of a computer-controlled bipolar diathermy system in radical prostatectomies and other open urological surgery.

Authors:  S Sengupta; D R Webb
Journal:  ANZ J Surg       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 1.872

2.  Evaluation of a vessel sealing system, bipolar electrosurgery, harmonic scalpel, titanium clips, endoscopic gastrointestinal anastomosis vascular staples and sutures for arterial and venous ligation in a porcine model.

Authors:  Jaime Landman; Kurt Kerbl; Jamil Rehman; Cassio Andreoni; Peter A Humphrey; William Collyer; Ephrem Olweny; Chandru Sundaram; Ralph V Clayman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  From Leonardo to da Vinci: the history of robot-assisted surgery in urology.

Authors:  David R Yates; Christophe Vaessen; Morgan Roupret
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-09-27       Impact factor: 5.588

4.  Feasibility study for robotic radical prostatectomy cautery-free neurovascular bundle preservation.

Authors:  Thomas E Ahlering; Louis Eichel; David Chou; Douglas W Skarecky
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.649

5.  The learning curve of robot-assisted radical cystectomy: results from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium.

Authors:  Matthew H Hayn; Abid Hussain; Ahmed M Mansour; Paul E Andrews; Paul Carpentier; Erik Castle; Prokar Dasgupta; Peter Rimington; Raju Thomas; Shamim Khan; Adam Kibel; Hyung Kim; Murugesan Manoharan; Mani Menon; Alex Mottrie; David Ornstein; James Peabody; Raj Pruthi; Joan Palou Redorta; Lee Richstone; Francis Schanne; Hans Stricker; Peter Wiklund; Rameela Chandrasekhar; Greg E Wilding; Khurshid A Guru
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2010-04-23       Impact factor: 20.096

6.  Impact of the learning curve on perioperative outcomes in patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomy for parenchymal renal tumours.

Authors:  Alexandre Mottrie; Geert De Naeyer; Peter Schatteman; Paul Carpentier; Mattia Sangalli; Vincenzo Ficarra
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2010-04-07       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Ultrastructural study of peripheral nerve injury induced by monopolar and bipolar diathermy.

Authors:  Y Zohar; R Sadov; M Strauss; M Djialdetti
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 1.547

Review 8.  Minimally invasive approaches to prostate cancer: a review of the current literature.

Authors:  Ari Abraham Hakimi; Marc Feder; Reza Ghavamian
Journal:  Urol J       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 1.510

9.  Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; D Schultz; K Blank; G A Broderick; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; I Kaplan; C J Beard; A Wein
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-09-16       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Electrothermal bipolar coagulation for radical prostatectomies and cystectomies: a preliminary case-controlled study.

Authors:  George Daskalopoulos; Ioannis Karyotis; Ioannis Heretis; Dimitrios Delakas
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.370

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.