Ben Xu1, Si-da Cheng2, Yi-Ji Peng2, Qian Zhang3. 1. Department of Urology, National Urological Cancer Center, Peking University First Hospital and Institute of Urology, Peking University, 8 Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China. xuben_pku@sina.com. 2. Department of Urology, National Urological Cancer Center, Peking University First Hospital and Institute of Urology, Peking University, 8 Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China. 3. Department of Urology, National Urological Cancer Center, Peking University First Hospital and Institute of Urology, Peking University, 8 Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China. zhangqian@bjmu.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare the functional and oncological outcomes between innovative "three-port" and traditional "four-port" laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: We retrospectively collected the data of PCa patients treated at our institutions from June 2012 to May 2016. According to the inclusion criteria, a total of 234 patients were included in the study, including 112 in group A (four-port) and 122 in group B (three-port). The perioperatively surgical characteristics, functional and oncological outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences in the baseline parameters between these two groups. Compared with group A, the operative time (OT) and estimated blood loss (EBL) were significantly less in group B. On follow-up, the rate of positive surgical margin (PSM), prostate specific antigen (PSA) biochemical recurrence and continence after LRP did not show any statistically significant difference between the groups. An identical conclusion was also received in comparison of overall survival (OS) and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Innovative "three-port" LRP can significantly shorten the OT and reduce the EBL compared with the traditional "four-port" LRP. Meanwhile, it does not increase the rate of PSM and PSA biochemical recurrence. "Three-port" LRP could be popularized in the future in view of its superior surgical technique, considerably better functional outcomes and remarkable oncological control.
BACKGROUND: To compare the functional and oncological outcomes between innovative "three-port" and traditional "four-port" laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: We retrospectively collected the data of PCa patients treated at our institutions from June 2012 to May 2016. According to the inclusion criteria, a total of 234 patients were included in the study, including 112 in group A (four-port) and 122 in group B (three-port). The perioperatively surgical characteristics, functional and oncological outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences in the baseline parameters between these two groups. Compared with group A, the operative time (OT) and estimated blood loss (EBL) were significantly less in group B. On follow-up, the rate of positive surgical margin (PSM), prostate specific antigen (PSA) biochemical recurrence and continence after LRP did not show any statistically significant difference between the groups. An identical conclusion was also received in comparison of overall survival (OS) and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Innovative "three-port" LRP can significantly shorten the OT and reduce the EBL compared with the traditional "four-port" LRP. Meanwhile, it does not increase the rate of PSM and PSA biochemical recurrence. "Three-port" LRP could be popularized in the future in view of its superior surgical technique, considerably better functional outcomes and remarkable oncological control.
Authors: Ashutosh Tewari; Prasanna Sooriakumaran; Daniel A Bloch; Usha Seshadri-Kreaden; April E Hebert; Peter Wiklund Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-02-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Gyusung I Lee; Mija R Lee; Tameka Clanton; Tamera Clanton; Erica Sutton; Adrian E Park; Michael R Marohn Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Ali Kasraeian; Eric Barret; Jonathan Chan; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; Pierre Validire; Xavier Cathelineau; Francois Rozet; Marc Galiano; Guy Vallancien Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-03-10 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Annabelle Forsmark; Jacob Gehrman; Eva Angenete; Anders Bjartell; Ingela Björholt; Stefan Carlsson; Jonas Hugosson; Tom Marlow; Karin Stinesen-Kollberg; Johan Stranne; Anna Wallerstedt; Peter Wiklund; Ulrica Wilderäng; Eva Haglind Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-08-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Giacomo Novara; Vincenzo Ficarra; Raymond C Rosen; Walter Artibani; Anthony Costello; James A Eastham; Markus Graefen; Giorgio Guazzoni; Shahrokh F Shariat; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Hendrik Van Poppel; Filiberto Zattoni; Francesco Montorsi; Alexandre Mottrie; Timothy G Wilson Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-02 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396