Abstract：Objective:To evaluate the continence recovery rate between the PLA General Hospital and the San Bassiano Hospital after robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). Methods:We retrospectively reviewed the complete clinical and follow-up data of 202 cases, 95 cases in the PLA General Hospital and 107 cases in the San Bassiano Hospital. Results:All 202 cases received successful operation. There were significant difference with preoperative BMI and D'Amico risk classification(P＜0.001). Average operative time was (127.3±54.9)∶(162.5±52.9)min(P＜0.001),estimated blood loss was (111.4±37.7)∶(120.2±36.3)ml(P=0.092),lymphadenectomy rate was 63(66.3%)vs 53(49.5%)(P=0.016),nerve sparing rate was 90(94.7%)∶53(49.5%)(P＜0.001), respectively. The Clavien-Dindo complication rates were Grade Ⅱ(3∶3) and Grade Ⅲa(0∶1)(P=0.065),hospital stay was (6.5±1.7)∶(3.2±1.9)d(P＜0.001),the foley catheter was removed on postoperative day of (10.6±3.1)∶(7.8±2.6)d(P＜0.001),there was significant difference in pathological stage (P＜0.001), positive surgical margin rate was 9(20.0%)∶9(19.8%)(P=0.68),positive lymph node rate was 3(4.8%)∶3(5.7%)(P=0.82), respectively;the postoperative continence recovery rates of 3、6 and 12 months were 75.8%∶75.7%、 88.4%∶84.1%、 90.5%∶92.5%(P=0.91), respectively. Conclusions:Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is safe and reliable, with predominant disposal of the slight anatomic structure, which is good for early recovery of continence.
[1]Sriprasad S, Feneley MR, Thompson PM. History of prostate cancer treatment. Surg Oncol, 2009,18(3):185-191. [2]Patel VR, Thaly R, Shah K. Robotic radical prostatectomy: outcomes of 500 cases. BJU Int, 2007,99(5):1109-1112. [3]Altamar HO, Herrell SD. The current status of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Curr Opin Urol, 2010,20(1):56-59. [4]Ouzaid I, Xylinas E, Ploussard G,et al. Anastomotic Stricture After Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy: What Should Be Expected from the Van Velthoven Single-Knot Running Suture? J Endourol, 2012,26(8):1020-1025. [5]Bivalacqua TJ, Pierorazio PM, Su LM. Open, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: optimizing the surgical approach. Surg Oncol, 2009,18(3):233-241. [6]Lavery HJ, Thaly R, Albala D, et al. Robotic equipment malfunction during robotic prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study. J Endourol, 2008,22(9):2165-2168. [7]Greco F, Hoda MR, Wagner S, et al. Bilateral vs unilateral laparoscopic intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: evaluation of surgical and functional outcomes in 457 patients. BJU Int, 2011,108(4):583-587. [8]Novara G, Ficarra V, D'Elia C,et al. Trifecta outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int, 2011,107(1):100-104. [9]Srivastava A, Grover S, Sooriakumaran P, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a critical analysis of its impact on urinary continence. Curr Opin Urol, 2011,21(3):185-194. [10]Wilson T, Torrey R. Open versus robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: which is better? Curr Opin Urol, 2011,21(3):200-205. [11]Rozet F, Jaffe J, Braud G, et al. A direct comparison of robotic assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single institution experience.J Urol, 2007,178(2):478-482. [12]Zorn KC, Gofrit ON, Orvieto MA, et al. Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: Functional and Pathologic Outcomes with Interfascial Nerve Preservation. Eur Urol, 2007,51(3):755-763. [13]Kim WY, Whang YE, Pruthi RS, et al. Neoadjuvant docetaxel/estramustine prior to radical prostatectomy or external beam radiotherapy in high risk localized prostate cancer: a phase II trial. Urol Oncol, 2011,29(6):608-613. [14]Shepard DR, Raghavan D. Innovations in the systemic therapy of prostate cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol, 2010,7(1):13-21.
