Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Robot-assisted or pure laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: what is the optimal procedure for the surgical margins? A single center experience.
Int J Urol. 2012 Dec; 19(12):1076-81.IJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To compare positive surgical margin rates after robot-assisted and pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy when neurovascular bundles are preserved, and to identify parameters affecting surgical margin status.

METHODS

From March 2004 to January 2009, 279 consecutive prostatectomies with preservation of neurovascular bundles were carried out by the same surgeon: 175 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies and 104 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies. An intraperitoneal Montsouris's technique was used for all cases. Patient's age, body mass index, prostate weight, prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, preoperative and postoperative Gleason score, percentage of positive biopsies, pathological stage, and positive surgical margin status were prospectively recorded in an institutional database. The two groups were retrospectively analyzed and compared.

RESULTS

Positive surgical margin rates were 17% and 13% for the robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy group (P = 0.4), respectively. At multivariable analysis, only prostate-specific antigen level and prostate weight significantly affected the surgical margin status, where the type of procedure (robotic vs laparoscopic) did not have any effect.

CONCLUSION

In our single-surgeon experience, prostate-specific antigen levels and prostate weight are predictive of positive surgical margin in patients undergoing nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy, whereas there seems to be no difference between the robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy techniques.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Urology, University of Burgundy, CHU Dijon, Dijon, France.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

22860572

Citation

Koutlidis, Nicolas, et al. "Robot-assisted or Pure Laparoscopic Nerve-sparing Radical Prostatectomy: what Is the Optimal Procedure for the Surgical Margins? a Single Center Experience." International Journal of Urology : Official Journal of the Japanese Urological Association, vol. 19, no. 12, 2012, pp. 1076-81.
Koutlidis N, Mourey E, Champigneulle J, et al. Robot-assisted or pure laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: what is the optimal procedure for the surgical margins? A single center experience. Int J Urol. 2012;19(12):1076-81.
Koutlidis, N., Mourey, E., Champigneulle, J., Mangin, P., & Cormier, L. (2012). Robot-assisted or pure laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: what is the optimal procedure for the surgical margins? A single center experience. International Journal of Urology : Official Journal of the Japanese Urological Association, 19(12), 1076-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2012.03102.x
Koutlidis N, et al. Robot-assisted or Pure Laparoscopic Nerve-sparing Radical Prostatectomy: what Is the Optimal Procedure for the Surgical Margins? a Single Center Experience. Int J Urol. 2012;19(12):1076-81. PubMed PMID: 22860572.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Robot-assisted or pure laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: what is the optimal procedure for the surgical margins? A single center experience. AU - Koutlidis,Nicolas, AU - Mourey,Eric, AU - Champigneulle,Jacqueline, AU - Mangin,Philippe, AU - Cormier,Luc, Y1 - 2012/07/31/ PY - 2012/8/7/entrez PY - 2012/8/7/pubmed PY - 2013/6/5/medline SP - 1076 EP - 81 JF - International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association JO - Int J Urol VL - 19 IS - 12 N2 - OBJECTIVES: To compare positive surgical margin rates after robot-assisted and pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy when neurovascular bundles are preserved, and to identify parameters affecting surgical margin status. METHODS: From March 2004 to January 2009, 279 consecutive prostatectomies with preservation of neurovascular bundles were carried out by the same surgeon: 175 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies and 104 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies. An intraperitoneal Montsouris's technique was used for all cases. Patient's age, body mass index, prostate weight, prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, preoperative and postoperative Gleason score, percentage of positive biopsies, pathological stage, and positive surgical margin status were prospectively recorded in an institutional database. The two groups were retrospectively analyzed and compared. RESULTS: Positive surgical margin rates were 17% and 13% for the robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy group (P = 0.4), respectively. At multivariable analysis, only prostate-specific antigen level and prostate weight significantly affected the surgical margin status, where the type of procedure (robotic vs laparoscopic) did not have any effect. CONCLUSION: In our single-surgeon experience, prostate-specific antigen levels and prostate weight are predictive of positive surgical margin in patients undergoing nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy, whereas there seems to be no difference between the robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy techniques. SN - 1442-2042 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/22860572/Robot_assisted_or_pure_laparoscopic_nerve_sparing_radical_prostatectomy:_what_is_the_optimal_procedure_for_the_surgical_margins_A_single_center_experience_ L2 - https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2012.03102.x DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -