Outcomes of robotic prostatectomy for treating clinically advanced prostate cancer

Won Sik Ham, Sung Yul Park, Koon Ho Rha, Young Deuk Choi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Robotic prostatectomy (RP) has been widely performed for treating clinically localized prostate cancer (PC), whereas for treating clinically advanced PC, prostatectomy is usually done by open methods. We evaluated the outcomes of RP for treating patients with clinically advanced PC as compared with the outcomes of RP for treating patients with clinically localized PC. Materials and Methods: We performed RP in 273 patients with the da Vinci® robot system through a transperitoneal approach. Ninety-two patients had clinically advanced PC (Group I) and 181 patients had clinically localized PC (Group II). We compared the perioperative variables and early surgical outcomes between the two groups. Results: The two groups did not show significant differences for their mean age, but the mean preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and biopsy Gleason scores were significantly higher in Group I. There were no significant differences in the mean operation time (Group I: 214.9±45.1 min, II 217.8±49.0 min, p=0.709), the estimated blood loss (Group 1: 382.8± 281.5ml, II: 387.5±369.5ml, p=0.934), the duration of bladder catheterization (Group I: 12.0±2.8 days, 11: 12.9±4.6 days, p=0.232), the hospital stay (Group I: 5.9±3.5 days, 11: 5.0±2.4 days, p=0.154), and the time to start the post-operative regular diet (Group 1: 25±1.5 days, II: 2.0±0.6 days, p=0.089) between the two groups. There was a significant difference in lymph node invasion (p<0.001), but no difference in the positive surgical margin (p= 0.180). Two out of the 4 intraoperative rectal injuries occurred in the clinically advanced PC group, but they were closed primarily without specific problems, except for 1 case. Conclusions: Our results suggest that RP may be performed safely for patients with clinically advanced PC.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)325-329
Number of pages5
JournalKorean Journal of Urology
Volume49
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2008 Apr 1

Fingerprint

Robotics
Prostatectomy
Prostatic Neoplasms
Neoplasm Grading
Prostate-Specific Antigen
Blood Group Antigens
Catheterization
Length of Stay
Urinary Bladder
Lymph Nodes
Diet
Biopsy
Wounds and Injuries

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Urology

Cite this

@article{530c5f370ff749fda5b7ca8c89915d5f,
title = "Outcomes of robotic prostatectomy for treating clinically advanced prostate cancer",
abstract = "Purpose: Robotic prostatectomy (RP) has been widely performed for treating clinically localized prostate cancer (PC), whereas for treating clinically advanced PC, prostatectomy is usually done by open methods. We evaluated the outcomes of RP for treating patients with clinically advanced PC as compared with the outcomes of RP for treating patients with clinically localized PC. Materials and Methods: We performed RP in 273 patients with the da Vinci{\circledR} robot system through a transperitoneal approach. Ninety-two patients had clinically advanced PC (Group I) and 181 patients had clinically localized PC (Group II). We compared the perioperative variables and early surgical outcomes between the two groups. Results: The two groups did not show significant differences for their mean age, but the mean preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and biopsy Gleason scores were significantly higher in Group I. There were no significant differences in the mean operation time (Group I: 214.9±45.1 min, II 217.8±49.0 min, p=0.709), the estimated blood loss (Group 1: 382.8± 281.5ml, II: 387.5±369.5ml, p=0.934), the duration of bladder catheterization (Group I: 12.0±2.8 days, 11: 12.9±4.6 days, p=0.232), the hospital stay (Group I: 5.9±3.5 days, 11: 5.0±2.4 days, p=0.154), and the time to start the post-operative regular diet (Group 1: 25±1.5 days, II: 2.0±0.6 days, p=0.089) between the two groups. There was a significant difference in lymph node invasion (p<0.001), but no difference in the positive surgical margin (p= 0.180). Two out of the 4 intraoperative rectal injuries occurred in the clinically advanced PC group, but they were closed primarily without specific problems, except for 1 case. Conclusions: Our results suggest that RP may be performed safely for patients with clinically advanced PC.",
author = "Ham, {Won Sik} and Park, {Sung Yul} and Rha, {Koon Ho} and Choi, {Young Deuk}",
year = "2008",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4111/kju.2008.49.4.325",
language = "English",
volume = "49",
pages = "325--329",
journal = "Korean Journal of Urology",
issn = "2005-6737",
publisher = "Korean Urological Association",
number = "4",

}

Outcomes of robotic prostatectomy for treating clinically advanced prostate cancer. / Ham, Won Sik; Park, Sung Yul; Rha, Koon Ho; Choi, Young Deuk.

In: Korean Journal of Urology, Vol. 49, No. 4, 01.04.2008, p. 325-329.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Outcomes of robotic prostatectomy for treating clinically advanced prostate cancer

AU - Ham, Won Sik

AU - Park, Sung Yul

AU - Rha, Koon Ho

AU - Choi, Young Deuk

PY - 2008/4/1

Y1 - 2008/4/1

N2 - Purpose: Robotic prostatectomy (RP) has been widely performed for treating clinically localized prostate cancer (PC), whereas for treating clinically advanced PC, prostatectomy is usually done by open methods. We evaluated the outcomes of RP for treating patients with clinically advanced PC as compared with the outcomes of RP for treating patients with clinically localized PC. Materials and Methods: We performed RP in 273 patients with the da Vinci® robot system through a transperitoneal approach. Ninety-two patients had clinically advanced PC (Group I) and 181 patients had clinically localized PC (Group II). We compared the perioperative variables and early surgical outcomes between the two groups. Results: The two groups did not show significant differences for their mean age, but the mean preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and biopsy Gleason scores were significantly higher in Group I. There were no significant differences in the mean operation time (Group I: 214.9±45.1 min, II 217.8±49.0 min, p=0.709), the estimated blood loss (Group 1: 382.8± 281.5ml, II: 387.5±369.5ml, p=0.934), the duration of bladder catheterization (Group I: 12.0±2.8 days, 11: 12.9±4.6 days, p=0.232), the hospital stay (Group I: 5.9±3.5 days, 11: 5.0±2.4 days, p=0.154), and the time to start the post-operative regular diet (Group 1: 25±1.5 days, II: 2.0±0.6 days, p=0.089) between the two groups. There was a significant difference in lymph node invasion (p<0.001), but no difference in the positive surgical margin (p= 0.180). Two out of the 4 intraoperative rectal injuries occurred in the clinically advanced PC group, but they were closed primarily without specific problems, except for 1 case. Conclusions: Our results suggest that RP may be performed safely for patients with clinically advanced PC.

AB - Purpose: Robotic prostatectomy (RP) has been widely performed for treating clinically localized prostate cancer (PC), whereas for treating clinically advanced PC, prostatectomy is usually done by open methods. We evaluated the outcomes of RP for treating patients with clinically advanced PC as compared with the outcomes of RP for treating patients with clinically localized PC. Materials and Methods: We performed RP in 273 patients with the da Vinci® robot system through a transperitoneal approach. Ninety-two patients had clinically advanced PC (Group I) and 181 patients had clinically localized PC (Group II). We compared the perioperative variables and early surgical outcomes between the two groups. Results: The two groups did not show significant differences for their mean age, but the mean preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and biopsy Gleason scores were significantly higher in Group I. There were no significant differences in the mean operation time (Group I: 214.9±45.1 min, II 217.8±49.0 min, p=0.709), the estimated blood loss (Group 1: 382.8± 281.5ml, II: 387.5±369.5ml, p=0.934), the duration of bladder catheterization (Group I: 12.0±2.8 days, 11: 12.9±4.6 days, p=0.232), the hospital stay (Group I: 5.9±3.5 days, 11: 5.0±2.4 days, p=0.154), and the time to start the post-operative regular diet (Group 1: 25±1.5 days, II: 2.0±0.6 days, p=0.089) between the two groups. There was a significant difference in lymph node invasion (p<0.001), but no difference in the positive surgical margin (p= 0.180). Two out of the 4 intraoperative rectal injuries occurred in the clinically advanced PC group, but they were closed primarily without specific problems, except for 1 case. Conclusions: Our results suggest that RP may be performed safely for patients with clinically advanced PC.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=43249087315&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=43249087315&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4111/kju.2008.49.4.325

DO - 10.4111/kju.2008.49.4.325

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:43249087315

VL - 49

SP - 325

EP - 329

JO - Korean Journal of Urology

JF - Korean Journal of Urology

SN - 2005-6737

IS - 4

ER -