Our aim was to compare both the perioperative and the short/medium-term post-operative oncological results after radical prostatectomy between two groups of prostate cancer patients: one group treated with radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP), the other one with robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP).We collected all the clinical, surgical, pathological and follow-up data of the patients who underwent radical prostatectomy with the two different surgical methods in a dedicated database. The positive surgical margins were defined by the presence of disease at the resection margin marked with China ink. The biochemical persistence of disease was defined as a PSA value >0.1 ng/mL 30 days after surgery, while the biochemical recurrence of the neoplasia was defined as a PSA value >0.2 ng/mL.The positive surgical margins (PSM) were identified as follows: 29.3\% (RRP) versus 25.4\% (RALP) in pT2 cancer (p 0.563), and 63.6\% (RRP) versus 50.0\% (RALP) in case of >pT2 cancer (p 0.559). If stratified by surgical approach, the results are: 53.3\% (RRP) versus 25.6\% (RALP) (p <0.001) in case of nerve-sparing technique. The persistence of disease is detectable in 5.4\% (RRP) versus 4.6\% (RALP), while the data on biochemical recurrence are: 2.7\% (RRP) versus 0\% (RALP).In our experience, in two groups of patients matched for clinic-pathological features who underwent RRP and RALP, oncological results are slightly better in the second group; this figure is even more significant when evaluating surgeries conducted with nerve-sparing technique. In this study we analyzed data of RALP, recently introduced in our center, comparing with RRP, a surgical technique consolidated through the decades. Therefore it can be said that even during the learning curve, RALP provides oncological results comparable to RRP.
[Short and medium term oncological results after robot-assisted prostatectomy: a comparative prospective non randomized study].
SIMEONE, Claudio
2013-01-01
Abstract
Our aim was to compare both the perioperative and the short/medium-term post-operative oncological results after radical prostatectomy between two groups of prostate cancer patients: one group treated with radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP), the other one with robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP).We collected all the clinical, surgical, pathological and follow-up data of the patients who underwent radical prostatectomy with the two different surgical methods in a dedicated database. The positive surgical margins were defined by the presence of disease at the resection margin marked with China ink. The biochemical persistence of disease was defined as a PSA value >0.1 ng/mL 30 days after surgery, while the biochemical recurrence of the neoplasia was defined as a PSA value >0.2 ng/mL.The positive surgical margins (PSM) were identified as follows: 29.3\% (RRP) versus 25.4\% (RALP) in pT2 cancer (p 0.563), and 63.6\% (RRP) versus 50.0\% (RALP) in case of >pT2 cancer (p 0.559). If stratified by surgical approach, the results are: 53.3\% (RRP) versus 25.6\% (RALP) (p <0.001) in case of nerve-sparing technique. The persistence of disease is detectable in 5.4\% (RRP) versus 4.6\% (RALP), while the data on biochemical recurrence are: 2.7\% (RRP) versus 0\% (RALP).In our experience, in two groups of patients matched for clinic-pathological features who underwent RRP and RALP, oncological results are slightly better in the second group; this figure is even more significant when evaluating surgeries conducted with nerve-sparing technique. In this study we analyzed data of RALP, recently introduced in our center, comparing with RRP, a surgical technique consolidated through the decades. Therefore it can be said that even during the learning curve, RALP provides oncological results comparable to RRP.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.