Email this article Comparison of oncological results and functional outcomes of radical prostatectomy techniques – retropubic, laparoscopic and robot-assisted
- Authors: Prilepskaya E.A.1, Maltsev E.G.1, Kolontarev K.B.1, Govorov A.V.1, Rasner P.I.1, Vasilyev A.O.1, Sadchenko A.V.1, Dyakov V.V.1, Pushkar D.U.1
-
Affiliations:
- A. I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Ministry of Health of Russia
- Issue: Vol 11, No 4 (2015)
- Pages: 54-58
- Section: DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF URINARY SYSTEM TUMORS. PROSTATE CANCER
- Published: 30.12.2015
- URL: https://oncourology.abvpress.ru/oncur/article/view/525
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17650/1726-9776-2015-11-4-54-58
- ID: 525
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
Radical prostatectomy (RP) continues to be the «gold standard» in the treatment of localized prostate cancer (PC) for patients with a life expectancy of 10 years.
The purpose of this article is to review pertinent literature to the several surgical approaches for PC and compare both functional outcomes and oncological results of radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). We chose and systematically reviewed 44 articles published between 1999 and 2013. Comparison analysis showed that the mean blood loss during RRP, LRP and RARP was 935, 442 and 191 ml respectively. Intraoperative transfusion required 19,9; 6,3 and 4,6 % patients respectively. We’d like to outline in our functional outcomes that within the 6-months and 12-months period of follow-up acute urinary retention experienced 89,1 and 92,7 % patients undergoing RARP.
However, lack of certain data and absence of standard assessment methods made objective evaluation of erectile function quite complex. Oncologic results revealed that positive surgical margin rates were higher for RARP in comparison to patients after RRP and LRP (the difference was statistically significant).
Nevertheless, the absence of randomized approach in an overwhelming majority of cases, as well as the short follow-up period are serious deterrents limiting the number of such trials. Therefore it’s still impossible today to draw certain conclusions about the superiority of any surgical approach for RP
About the authors
E. A. Prilepskaya
A. I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Ministry of Health of Russia
Author for correspondence.
Email: prilepskayae@mail.ru
Build. 2, 20 Delegatskaya St., Moscow, 12747 Russian Federation
E. G. Maltsev
A. I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Ministry of Health of RussiaBuild. 2, 20 Delegatskaya St., Moscow, 12747 Russian Federation
K. B. Kolontarev
A. I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Ministry of Health of RussiaBuild. 2, 20 Delegatskaya St., Moscow, 12747 Russian Federation
A. V. Govorov
A. I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Ministry of Health of RussiaBuild. 2, 20 Delegatskaya St., Moscow, 12747 Russian Federation
P. I. Rasner
A. I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Ministry of Health of RussiaBuild. 2, 20 Delegatskaya St., Moscow, 12747 Russian Federation
A. O. Vasilyev
A. I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Ministry of Health of RussiaBuild. 2, 20 Delegatskaya St., Moscow, 12747 Russian Federation
A. V. Sadchenko
A. I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Ministry of Health of RussiaBuild. 2, 20 Delegatskaya St., Moscow, 12747 Russian Federation
V. V. Dyakov
A. I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Ministry of Health of RussiaBuild. 2, 20 Delegatskaya St., Moscow, 12747 Russian Federation
D. U. Pushkar
A. I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Ministry of Health of RussiaBuild. 2, 20 Delegatskaya St., Moscow, 12747 Russian Federation
References
Supplementary files
