Yıl: 2023 Cilt: 3 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 1 - 7 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.5505/GJU.2022.09719 İndeks Tarihi: 05-04-2023

Does the Apical Dissection Technique Affect the Oncological and Functional Outcomes in Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy? Collar Technique vs Standard Technique

Öz:
Objective: To compare the oncological and functional results of the collar technique (CT) with the standard technique (ST) used for the apical dissection in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). Materials and Methods: Sixty-five patients were operated using ST, and 61 patients with CT. The oncological and functional results of the two techniques were compared. Results: The continence rates at 1st and 6th months after catheter removal were 59.0% and 90.2% in the CT, and 36.9% and 87.6% in the ST groups, respectively (p=0.02, and p=0.78). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of detection rates of surgical margin positivity (p=0.54). In multivariable logistic regression analysis only the choice of the surgical technique was found to be statistically significantly correlated with the continence rate at the first month after the catheter removal (p=0.023). Conclusion: The CT is a surgical technique, which can be used safely in the RALP procedure, with relatively higher early-term continence rates and oncologic outcomes comparable to the standard technique.
Anahtar Kelime: prostate cancer robotic radical prostatectomy apical dissection technique

Robot Yardımlı Laparoskopik Radikal Prostatektomide Apikal Diseksiyon Tekniği Onkolojik ve Fonksiyonel Sonuçları Etkiler mi? Collar Tekniği vs Standart Teknik

Öz:
Amaç: Robot yardımlı laparoskopik radikal prostatektomide (RALP) apikal diseksiyonda kullanılan collar tekniği (CT) ile standart tekniğin (ST) onkolojik ve fonksiyonel sonuçlarını karşılaştırmak. Gereçler ve Yöntemler: 65 hastada ST kullanılırken, 61 hastada CT kullanıldı. İki tekniğin onkolojik ve fonksiyonel sonuçları karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Kateter çıkarıldıktan sonra 1. ve 6. aylarda kontinans oranları CT grubunda sırasıyla %59.0 ve %90.2, ST grubunda %36.9 ve %87.6 idi (p=0.02, p=0.78). Cerrahi sınır pozitifliği açısından iki grup arasında anlamlı fark yoktu (p=0,54). Çok değişkenli lojistik regresyon analizinde sadece kateter çıkarıldıktan sonra 1. aydaki kontinans oranı ile kullanılan cerrahi teknik arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı korelasyon saptandı (p=0,023). Sonuç: CT, RALP prosedüründe yüksek erken kontinans oranları ve ST ile benzer onkolojik sonuçları ile güvenle uygulanabilecek bir cerrahi tekniktir.
Anahtar Kelime: prostat kanseri robotic radikal prostatektomi apikal diseksiyon teknik

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • [1] Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 2015;136:E359-86. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.29210
  • [2] Gallina A, Chun FKH, Suardi N, Eastham JA, Perrotte P, Graefen M, et al. Comparison of stage migration patterns between Europe and the USA: an analysis of 11 350 men treated with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2008;101:1513-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07519.x
  • [3] Mottet N, van den Bergh RC, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-EANMESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer—2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2021;79:243-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042
  • [4] Reiner WG, Walsh PC. An anatomical approach to the surgical management of the dorsal vein and Santorini’s plexus during radical retropubic surgery. J Urol 1979;121:198-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)56718-x
  • [5] Myers RP, Goellner JR, Cahill DR. Prostate shape, external striated urethral sphincter and radical prostatectomy: the apical dissection. J Urol 1987;138:543-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)43253-8
  • [6] Rocco F, Carmignani L, Acquati P, Gadda F, Dell’Orto P, Rocco B, et al. Restoration of posterior aspect of rhabdosphincter shortens continence time after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 2006;175:2201-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00262-X
  • [7] Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robotassisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:405-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.045
  • [8] Hammerer P, Huland H. Urodynamic evaluation of changes in urinary control after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 1997;157:233-6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8976260
  • [9] Myers RP, Cahill DR, Devine RM, King BF. Anatomy of radical prostatectomy as defined by magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 1998;159:2148-58. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9598561
  • [10] Nguyen L, Jhaveri J, Tewari A. Surgical technique to overcome anatomical shortcoming: balancing postprostatectomy continence outcomes of urethral sphincter lengths on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 2008;179:1907-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.036
  • [11] Paparel P, Akin O, Sandhu JS, Otero JR, Serio AM, Scardino PT, et al. Recovery of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy: association with urethral length and urethral fibrosis measured by preoperative and postoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Urol 2009;55:629-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.08.057
  • [12] Schlomm T, Heinzer H, Steuber T, Salomon G, Engel O, Michl U, et al. Full functional-length urethral sphincter preservation during radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2011;60:320-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.02.040
  • [13] Bianchi L, Turri FM, Larcher A, De Groote R, De Bruyne P, De Coninck V, et al. A novel approach for apical dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: the “collar” technique. Eur Urol Focus 2018;4:677-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.01.004
  • [14] Kojima Y, Takahashi N, Haga N, Nomiya M, Yanagida T, Ishibashi K, et al. Urinary incontinence after robotassisted radical prostatectomy: Pathophysiology and intraoperative techniques to improve surgical outcome. Int J Urol 2013;20:1052-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.12214
  • [15] Song W, Kim CK, Park BK, Jeon HG, Jeong BC, Seo SI, et al. Impact of preoperative and postoperative membranous urethral length measured by 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging on urinary continence recovery after roboticassisted radical prostatectomy. Can Urol Assoc J 2017;11:E93-9. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.4035
  • [16] Hakimi AA, Faleck DM, Agalliu I, Rozenblit AM, Chernyak V, Ghavamian R. Preoperative and intraoperative measurements of urethral length as predictors of continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2011;25:1025-30. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0692
  • [17] Lee SE, Byun S-S, Lee HJ, Song SH, Chang IH, Kim YJ, et al. Impact of variations in prostatic apex shape on early recovery of urinary continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2006;68:137-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.01.021
  • [18] Pastore AL, Mir A, Maruccia S, Palleschi G, Carbone A, Lopez C, et al. Psychological distress in patients undergoing surgery for urological cancer: A single centre cross-sectional study. Urol Oncol 2017:35:673.e1-673.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.08.006
  • [19] Köhler N, Gansera L, Holze S, Friedrich M, Rebmann U, Stolzenburg JU, et al. Cancer-related fatigue in patients before and after radical prostatectomy. Results of a prospective multi-centre study. Support Care Cancer 2014;22:2883-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-014-2265-5
  • [20] Punnen S, Cowan JE, Dunn LB, Shumay DM, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR. A longitudinal study of anxiety, depression and distress as predictors of sexual and urinary quality of life in men with prostate cancer. BJU Int 2013;112:E67-75. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12209
  • [21] Egawa S, Minei S, Iwamura M, Uchida T, Koshiba K. Urinary continence following radical prostatectomy. Jpn J Clin Oncol 1997;27:71-5. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/27.2.71
  • [22] Dev HS, Wiklund P, Patel V, Parashar D, Palmer K, Nyberg T, et al. Surgical margin length and location affect recurrence rates after robotic prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 2015;33:109.e7-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.11.005
  • [23] Checcucci E, Veccia A, Fiori C, Amparore D, Manfredi M, Di Dio M, et al. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy vs the standard approach: a systematic review and analysis of comparative outcomes. BJU Int 2020;125:8-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14887
  • [24] Bianco Jr FJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Radical prostatectomy: long-term cancer control and recovery of sexual and urinary function (“trifecta”). Urology 2005;66:83-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.06.116
APA Unsal A, Çetin S, POLAT F, Yeşil S, koparal m, bulut e, Atan A (2023). Does the Apical Dissection Technique Affect the Oncological and Functional Outcomes in Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy? Collar Technique vs Standard Technique. , 1 - 7. 10.5505/GJU.2022.09719
Chicago Unsal Ali,Çetin Serhat,POLAT FAZLI,Yeşil Süleyman,koparal murat yavuz,bulut ender cem,Atan Ali Does the Apical Dissection Technique Affect the Oncological and Functional Outcomes in Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy? Collar Technique vs Standard Technique. (2023): 1 - 7. 10.5505/GJU.2022.09719
MLA Unsal Ali,Çetin Serhat,POLAT FAZLI,Yeşil Süleyman,koparal murat yavuz,bulut ender cem,Atan Ali Does the Apical Dissection Technique Affect the Oncological and Functional Outcomes in Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy? Collar Technique vs Standard Technique. , 2023, ss.1 - 7. 10.5505/GJU.2022.09719
AMA Unsal A,Çetin S,POLAT F,Yeşil S,koparal m,bulut e,Atan A Does the Apical Dissection Technique Affect the Oncological and Functional Outcomes in Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy? Collar Technique vs Standard Technique. . 2023; 1 - 7. 10.5505/GJU.2022.09719
Vancouver Unsal A,Çetin S,POLAT F,Yeşil S,koparal m,bulut e,Atan A Does the Apical Dissection Technique Affect the Oncological and Functional Outcomes in Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy? Collar Technique vs Standard Technique. . 2023; 1 - 7. 10.5505/GJU.2022.09719
IEEE Unsal A,Çetin S,POLAT F,Yeşil S,koparal m,bulut e,Atan A "Does the Apical Dissection Technique Affect the Oncological and Functional Outcomes in Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy? Collar Technique vs Standard Technique." , ss.1 - 7, 2023. 10.5505/GJU.2022.09719
ISNAD Unsal, Ali vd. "Does the Apical Dissection Technique Affect the Oncological and Functional Outcomes in Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy? Collar Technique vs Standard Technique". (2023), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.5505/GJU.2022.09719
APA Unsal A, Çetin S, POLAT F, Yeşil S, koparal m, bulut e, Atan A (2023). Does the Apical Dissection Technique Affect the Oncological and Functional Outcomes in Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy? Collar Technique vs Standard Technique. Grand journal of urology (Online), 3(1), 1 - 7. 10.5505/GJU.2022.09719
Chicago Unsal Ali,Çetin Serhat,POLAT FAZLI,Yeşil Süleyman,koparal murat yavuz,bulut ender cem,Atan Ali Does the Apical Dissection Technique Affect the Oncological and Functional Outcomes in Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy? Collar Technique vs Standard Technique. Grand journal of urology (Online) 3, no.1 (2023): 1 - 7. 10.5505/GJU.2022.09719
MLA Unsal Ali,Çetin Serhat,POLAT FAZLI,Yeşil Süleyman,koparal murat yavuz,bulut ender cem,Atan Ali Does the Apical Dissection Technique Affect the Oncological and Functional Outcomes in Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy? Collar Technique vs Standard Technique. Grand journal of urology (Online), vol.3, no.1, 2023, ss.1 - 7. 10.5505/GJU.2022.09719
AMA Unsal A,Çetin S,POLAT F,Yeşil S,koparal m,bulut e,Atan A Does the Apical Dissection Technique Affect the Oncological and Functional Outcomes in Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy? Collar Technique vs Standard Technique. Grand journal of urology (Online). 2023; 3(1): 1 - 7. 10.5505/GJU.2022.09719
Vancouver Unsal A,Çetin S,POLAT F,Yeşil S,koparal m,bulut e,Atan A Does the Apical Dissection Technique Affect the Oncological and Functional Outcomes in Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy? Collar Technique vs Standard Technique. Grand journal of urology (Online). 2023; 3(1): 1 - 7. 10.5505/GJU.2022.09719
IEEE Unsal A,Çetin S,POLAT F,Yeşil S,koparal m,bulut e,Atan A "Does the Apical Dissection Technique Affect the Oncological and Functional Outcomes in Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy? Collar Technique vs Standard Technique." Grand journal of urology (Online), 3, ss.1 - 7, 2023. 10.5505/GJU.2022.09719
ISNAD Unsal, Ali vd. "Does the Apical Dissection Technique Affect the Oncological and Functional Outcomes in Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy? Collar Technique vs Standard Technique". Grand journal of urology (Online) 3/1 (2023), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.5505/GJU.2022.09719