Objective: To examine the effect of robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with different approaches on early postoperative effects. Methods: Totally 44 patients (average age of 65.9 years, range: 46 to 81 years) underwent robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by a single operator at Department of Urology, Peking Union Medical Collage Hospital from March 2018 to March 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The mean age was 65.9 years (range: 46 to 81 years), including 24 cases in the anterior bladder approach group (anterior approach group) and 20 cases in the posterior bladder approach group (posterior approach group). The preoperative clinical data, perioperative related data and postoperative urinary control recovery were compared between the two groups by t test, χ2 test or Fisher exact test. Results: In terms of clinical data, there was no difference in age, prostate volume, preoperative prostate specific antigen and Gleason score(all P>0.05). There was no significant difference in operation time ((184±43) minutes vs. (193±42) minutes, t=-0.599, P=0.55), bleeding volume ((218±88) ml vs. (225±115) ml, t=-0.244, P=0.81), postoperative stage (T2/T3: 15/9 vs. 12/8, χ²=0.029, P=0.87) and positive rate of cutting edge (29.2% (7/24) vs. 30.0% (6/20), χ²=0.004, P=0.95). In terms of postoperative urinary control, patient rates who achieved urinary control immediately after extubation was significantly higher for the posterior approach group than the anterior approach group (30.0% (6/20) vs. 4.2% (1/24), P=0.04). There was no significant difference between two groups for those who achieved urinary control 3 months after operation (6 cases vs. 11 cases, P=0.06), 6 months after operation (20 cases vs. 19 cases, P=0.36) and those who achieved urinary control 12 months after operation (23 cases vs. 19 cases, P=1). Conclusion: For robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, the posterior approach does not prolong the operation time, does not increase the amount of bleeding, and improves the short-term postoperative urinary control.
目的： 探讨不同入路机器人辅助前列腺癌根治术的早期效果。 方法： 回顾性分析2018年3月至2020年3月北京协和医院泌尿外科同一术者完成的44例机器人辅助前列腺癌根治术的病例资料，患者平均年龄65.9岁（范围：46~81岁）。手术经膀胱前入路完成24例（前入路组），经膀胱后入路完成20例（后入路组）。采用t检验、χ²检验和Fisher确切概率法比较两组患者的术前临床资料、围手术期相关结果及术后尿控情况。 结果： 两组患者的年龄、前列腺体积、术前前列腺特异性抗原及Gleason评分均无差异（P值均>0.05）。前入路组与后入路组的手术时间［（184±43）min比（193±42）min，t=-0.599，P=0.55］、术中出血量［（218±88）ml比（225±115）ml，t=-0.244，P=0.81］、病理学分期（T2/T3期：15/9比12/8，χ²=0.029，P=0.87）、切缘阳性率［29.2%（7/24）比30.0%（6/20），χ²=0.004，P=0.95］的差异均无统计学意义。以不使用成人纸尿裤为判断标准，前入路组拔尿管即刻及术后3、6、12个月达到尿控的患者分别为1、6、20、23例，后入路组分别为6、11、19、19例，后入路组拔尿管即刻达到尿控的比例高于前入路组［30.0%（6/20）比4.2%（1/24），P=0.04］，两组术后3、6、12个月达到尿控比例的差异均无统计学意义（P值均>0.05）。 结论： 经膀胱后入路行机器人辅助前列腺癌根治术，相较于经膀胱前入路不延长手术时间，不增加出血量，且可提高术后早期尿控恢复比例。.
Zhonghua wai ke za zhi [Chinese journal of surgery]. 2021 Nov 01 [Epub]
J Dong, Y J Chen, W F Xu, Z G Ji
Department of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China., Department of Urology, Cancer Hospital Affiliate to School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610041, China.