Abstract：Objective: To investigate the application and efficacy of robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) in the management of high-risk prostate cancer. Methods: The clinical date of 43 cases of high-risk prostate cancer receiving RALP from March 2015 to September 2016 in our department were collected and retrospectively analyzed. Results: All the operations were successfully completed and there was no open conversion. The mean operating time was (288.05±87.75) min and the mean intraoperative blood loss was (277.69±402.67) mL. The mean postoperative drainage volume within 3 days was (431.58±346.75) mL. The mean postoperative fasting time was (3.05±1.33) days. There were 3 cases of lymphatic leak, 2 cases of urine leak and one case of subcutaneous hemorrhage after RALP, and they were cured by conservative therapy. The catheterization time was about 2 weeks postoperation. The postoperative hospital stay was 4-39 days (mean, 12.56±6.47 days). The patients were followed up for 6 weeks to 15 months after RALP. Three patients had biochemical recurrence and no one had complete urinary incontinence. Conclusions: RALP is a safe and efficacious surgical modality in the management of high-risk prostate cancer. RALP showed obvious advantages in the short-term follow-up period, especially in the functional preservation and anatomical reconstruction.
[1]Tang P, Chen H, Uhlman M, et al. A nomogram based on age, prostate-specific antigen level, prostate volume and digital rectal examination for predicting risk of prostate cancer. Asian J Androl, 2013,15(1):129-133. [2]Binder J, Kramer W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int, 2001,87(4):408-410. [3]D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA, 1998,280(11):969-974. [4]Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol, 2016,pii: S0302-2838(16)30470-30475. [5]Abdollah F, Sood A, Sammon JD, et al. Long-term cancer control outcomes in patients with clinically high-risk prostate cancer treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: results from a multi-institutional study of 1100 patients. Eur Urol, 2015,68(3):497-505. [6]兰建宏,汪朔,夏丹,等.经腹膜外途径腹腔镜下根治性前列腺切除术治疗高危前列腺癌的疗效观察.中华泌尿外科杂志,2015,36(5):346-349. [7]Canda AE, Balbay MD. Robotic radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer: current perspectives. Asian J Androl, 2015,17(6):908-915, discussion 913. [8]Kumar A, Samavedi S, Bates AS, et al. Safety of selective nerve sparing in high risk prostate cancer during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Robot Surg, 2016, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11701-016-0627-3. [9]Lee D, Choi SK, Park J, et al. Comparative analysis of oncologic outcomes for open vs. robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer. Korean J Urol, 2015,56(8):572-579. [10]Punnen S, Meng MV, Cooperberg MR, et al. How does robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compare with open surgery in men with high-risk prostate cancer? BJU Int, 2013,112(4):E314-320. [11]Ritch CR, You C, May AT, et al. Biochemical recurrence-free survival after robotic-assisted laparoscopic vs open radical prostatectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Urology, 2014,83(6):1309-1315. [12]Drouin SJ, Vaessen C, Hupertan V, et al. Comparison of mid-term carcinologic control obtained after open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. World J Urol, 2009,27(5):599-605. [13]Kang SG, Schatloff O, Haidar AM, et al. Overall rate, location, and predictive factors for positive surgical margins after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. Asian J Androl, 2016,18(1):123-128. [14]Harty NJ, Kozinn SI, Canes D, et al. Comparison of positive surgical margin rates in high risk prostate cancer: open versus minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. Int Braz J Urol, 2013,39(5):639-646, discussion 647-638. [15]Lavery HJ, Nabizada-Pace F, Carlucci JR, et al. Nerve-sparing robotic prostatectomy in preoperatively high-risk patients is safe and efficacious. Urol Oncol, 2012,30(1):26-32. [16]Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol, 2012,62(3):405-417. [17]Porpiglia F, Morra I, Lucci Chiarissi M, et al. Randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol, 2013,63(4):606-614. [18]Haglind E, Carlsson S, Stranne J, et al. Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic versus open radical prostatectomy: A prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial. Eur Urol, 2015,68(2):216-225. [19]Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol, 2012,62(3):431-452. [20]Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA, et al. Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol, 2012,62(1):1-15.
