应用Partin tables预测国人前列腺癌术后病理特征准确性的研究

目的验证基于西方人样本资料的Partin tables预测国人前列腺癌术后病理特征的准确性。方法2000年6月至2005年12月，连续167例临床局限性前列腺癌患者接受根治性耻骨后前列腺切除术，术后病理报告是否器官局限性癌及有无包膜侵犯、精囊侵犯或淋巴结转移。根据术前PSA、临床分期及Gleason评分，应用Partin tables预测上述病理特征。统计学处理采用受试者工作特征（ROC）曲线分析的方法检验Partin tables预测术后病理特征的准确性，ROC曲线下面积〉0.7时判断相应病理特征的预测准确性具有理想的临床使用价值。结果本组器官局限性癌、包膜侵犯、精囊侵犯及淋巴结转移的发生率分别为54％、33％、14％及10％。应用Partin tables预测本组患者器官局限性癌、包膜侵犯、精囊侵犯及淋巴结转移的ROC曲线下面积分别为0．713（95％CI，0．636-0．790）、0．665（95％CI，0．579-0．750）、0．810（95％CI，0．717-0．903）、0．768（95％CI，0．641-0.895）。结论Partin tables对国人前列腺癌术后器官局限性癌、精囊侵犯及淋巴结转移3个病理特征预测较准确，但对包膜侵犯的预测准确性较低。     

局限性前列腺癌近距离放疗后采用TURP治疗的评价

近距离放疗是一种可以替代根治性前列腺切除和外照射治疗来处理局限性前列腺癌的治疗选择。但是 ,有报道表明放射物植入后有 1.5 %～ 2 2 %的患者发生尿潴留。作者评价局限性前列腺癌患者单纯采用近距离放射治疗后行经尿道前列腺切除 (TURP)的比例和效果。1998年 5月到 2 0 0 3年 5月 ,6 0 0例临床分期为T1c( 6 8.4 % )和T2a( 31.6 % )的局限性前列腺癌患者采用近距离放疗作为单一治疗方式 ,未联合其他辅助治疗。5 83例和 7例患者分别植入碘 12 5和钯 10 3粒子。除了前 17例患者采用超声引导的预设植入技术外 ,其余患者都采用实时的交互…     

经耻骨后前列腺根治性切除术的改进

前列腺癌是欧美国家最常见的男性肿瘤,是危害男性健康的第一肿瘤杀手。在我国,前列腺癌的发病率亦逐年上升。前列腺根治性切除术作为早期局限性前列腺癌最重要的治疗方法,可有效降低癌症的死亡率[1]。其术式包括经耻骨后前列腺根治性切除术,经会阴前列腺根治性切除术,经腹腔镜前列腺根治性切除术和机器人前列腺根治性切除术。近年来,随着我国诊疗技术的提高,每年早期局限性前列腺癌的病例数不断增加,手术例数亦逐年递增。耻骨后途径的前列腺根治性切除术仍是我国最为常用的术式。本文结合文献就近年来耻骨后前列腺根治性切除术的改进作一简…     

肾部分切除术和肾癌根治术治疗T1b期肾癌疗效比较的Meta分析

目的总结对侧肾功能正常的T1b期肾癌患者行肾部分切除术和根治性肾切除术的疗效差异,为临床上T1b期肾癌患者在手术方式的选择上提供循证学证据。方法收集Pubmed／Medline、Cochrane图书馆、Embase、CNKI中国期刊全文数据库、维普数据库和万方数字化期刊群2012年6月30日前国内外公开发表的有关T1b期肾癌患者行肾部分切除术（PN）和根治性肾切除术（RN）疗效比较的临床对照研究文献,对符合要求的文献进行Meta法系统分析。结果按照严格的纳入标准,最终PN和RN疗效和安全性比较的临床对照研究文献共6篇,总共纳入15740例患者,PN组1841例,RN组13926例。两种手术方式术后5年总生存率、5年肿瘤特异性生存率、5年无瘤生存率和肿瘤转移情况的相对危险度分别为1．02（95％CI为0．94～1．12）、1．11（95％CI为1．04～1．18）、0．67（95％CI为0．19～2．40）和0．21（95％CI为0．08～0．51）。结论两种手术方式术后患者5年总的生存率、5年无瘤生存率差别无统计学意义;PN组术后5年肿瘤特异性生存率优于RN组,PN组比RN组术后更容易合并肿瘤转移。因肾部分切除术能最大限度地保存残肾的肾单位和残肾功能,所以对T1b期肾癌行肾部分切除术是一种有效和可靠的治疗方法。但由于存在发表偏倚、选择偏倚的可能,我们期待出现更高质量的研究为以上结论提供更为可靠的证据。     

放射性粒子治疗前列腺癌后泌尿系统并发症及其相关因素的研究现状

永久性粒子植入已经成为治疗早期前列腺癌的一种选择。研究表明在早期前列腺癌患者生物指标的5年控制率上，粒子种植治疗与根治性前列腺切除、三维适形放疗疗效相当。然而治疗所引起的生活质量问题变得越来越重要。治疗副作用对生活质量带来的影响主要有出血性直肠炎、腹泻、性功能障碍、尿路刺激症状及尿失禁。根治性前列腺切除后，超过47％的患者出现不同程度尿失禁。与其相比，近距离放射性粒子治疗后出现尿失禁的几率显著下降，Botchers等报道0％-40％。本文就近距离放射性粒子治疗后泌尿系统并发症及其主要影响因素进行综述。     

前列腺癌根治性放疗后生化复发的应对策略

放疗是局限性前列腺癌较常用的根治性治疗方法。前列腺根治性放疗可选择外放射治疗（externalbeam radiotherapy,EBRT）及近距离照射治疗。根治性外放疗或粒子种植治疗后约20％-50％的病人会出现生化复发^[1],放疗后前列腺癌局部穿刺所证实的复发率为25％-94％,     

经会阴地^125I粒子组织间植入治疗局限性前列腺癌临床研究（附10例报告）

目的探讨经直肠超声（TRUS）引导下经会阴^125I粒子永久性组织间植入治疗局限性前列腺癌（PCa）的临床疗效。方法对10例临床局限性前列腺癌患者采用TRUS下经会阴^125I粒子永久性组织间植入的治疗情况进行回顾性研究。结果10例患者手术均成功，并发症少，术后3月内PSA均下降到正常值以下，随访9—38个月，PSA≤0．2ng／mL，均无生化失败，均存活。结论^125I粒子永久性组织间植入治疗局限性前列腺癌的临床疗效好，生化失败少，远期并发症少，生活质量高，是治疗局限性前列腺癌的良好方案。     

前列腺疾患与前列腺癌关系研究的Meta分析

目的：探讨中国人群前列腺疾患（前列腺炎和前列腺增生）与前列腺癌的关系．为预防决策提供依据。方法：分别以“前列腺炎”、“前列腺增生”和“前列腺癌”等为检索词，收集1979年1月～2005年6月国内公开发表的关于中国人群前列腺疾患与前列腺癌的研究文献，并用RevMan4．2软件对这些文献进行Meta综合定量；根据固定效应模型和随机效应模型计算结果的一致程度及失效安令系数进行敏感性分析。结果：纳入本次Meta分析的文献共有4篇．累计病例487例．对照1850例。前列腺疾患与前列腺癌发生的合并相对危险度（OR）值为4．69及95％可信区间（95％CI）为0．60～6．10，P〈0．05。结论：前列腺炎、前列腺增生是前列腺癌发生的危险因素。     

前列腺癌近距离治疗的效果和不良反应分析

目的探讨局限性前列腺癌患者接受近距离治疗的疗效及不良反应。方法2001～2010年接受近距离治疗的局限性前列腺癌患者67例。随访术后PSA变化及不良反应发生情况，并分析影响治疗效果的相关因素。结果64例（95．5％）获得平均33．9（4～112）个月的随访。术前PSA平均为20．04ng／mL，术后最低PSA值平均为1．15ng／mL，40例（62．5％）患者最低PSA值〈1ng／mL，26例（40．6％）患者最低PSA值〈0．5ng／mL，达最低PSA值时间平均为术后11（1～26）个月。术后常见短期不良反应有：发热4例，血尿8例，便血3例。长期不良反应有：尿路刺激症状19例，便血7例，血尿2例，尿失禁2例，尿潴留1例。结论近距离治疗是局限性前列腺癌的有效治疗方法，疗效肯定，并发症发生率低，严重不良反应少见。     

新辅助内分泌治疗结合机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术治疗高危前列腺癌的优势

目的：探讨高危前列腺癌患者行新辅助内分泌治疗（neoadjuvant hormonal therapy, NHT）后,行机器人辅助腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术（robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, RALRP）较腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术（laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, LRP） 和耻骨后根治性前列腺切除术 （ retropubic radical prostatectomy, RRP）的优势。方法：回顾性分析我院自2010年3月-2012年1月以新辅助内分泌治疗结合根治性前列腺切除术治疗的16例高危前列腺癌的临床资料。术前采取3-6个月的LHRH-a＋抗雄药物的最大程度雄激素阻断方法（maximal androgen blockage,MAB）作为NHT方案,NHT后PSA均降至0．2μg／L以下。之后,其中5例接受RALRP,5例接受LRP,6例接受RRP。三组患者治疗前基线情况（年龄、PSA水平、Gleason评分）差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结果：手术均获成功。中位手术时间（operating time,OT）、失血量（esti-mated blood loss,EBL）、住院天数（hospital stay,HS）在RALRP组为225min（包括机器人到位15min）、600mI、7d,在LRP组为280min、900mi、7d,在RRP组为150min、675ml、14．5d。三组患者术后均无尿漏,术后3天拔除双侧引流管。术后病理均无切缘阳性。三组各有1例患者在术后3个月时因PSA复燃而接受辅助性内分泌治疗（P=1．00）。术后3个月时,除2例RRP组患者尚存压力性尿失禁,其余患者均恢复尿控（P=0．29）。结论：对于接受NHT的高危前列腺癌患者而言,相对于开放手术和腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术,机器人辅助腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术仍然是这些患者的更佳选择。     

Can patients with low-risk prostate cancer really benefit from radical treatment?: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy and active surveillance are three widely used treatment options for patients with low-risk prostate cancer, but the relative effects are controversial. We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science until June 2020, focusing on the studies comparing the effect of radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy and active surveillance in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Through the random-effects model, dichotomous data were extracted and summarised by odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval. Twenty-two studies containing 185,363 participants were pooled for the comprehensive comparison. The Bayesian mixed network estimate demonstrated the cancer-specific mortality of radical prostatectomy was significantly lower than active surveillance (OR, 0.46; 95% CI 0.34–0.64) and external beam radiation therapy (OR, 0.66; 95% CI 0.46–0.96), but not brachytherapy (OR, 0.63; 95% CI 0.41–1.03). The brachytherapy demonstrated the best treatment ranking probability results in terms of all-cause mortality, while no significant difference was observed when compared with other three treatment modalities. Brachytherapy and radical prostatectomy were associated with a similar risk of cancer-specific mortality, and both of them were significantly superior to active surveillance and external beam radiation therapy; nevertheless, there was no significant difference among the aforementioned treatment methods in all-cause mortality.     

The perioperative charge equivalence of interstitial brachytherapy and radical prostatectomy with 1-year followup

PURPOSE: We compare the comprehensive 1-year charges in a consecutive group of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and transperineal interstitial brachytherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer at a single urban institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60 consecutive men with clinically localized prostate cancer (T1-T2, N0, M0) were treated during a 15-month period with radical prostatectomy or interstitial brachytherapy. Hospital and outpatient records were analyzed for each patient in regard to preoperative, operative and postoperative charges. Parameters included number of encounters, diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, hospitalization and operative charges, and followup visits, diagnostic tests and interventions for 1 year. All charge calculations were based arbitrarily on the 1996 Medicare fee schedule, factoring in the mandated global charge reimbursement period of 90 days for both procedures. RESULTS: Of the patients 38 underwent radical prostatectomy (prostatectomy group) and 22 underwent interstitial brachytherapy (brachytherapy group). The brachytherapy group was older with higher pretreatment serum prostate specific antigen and clinical stage disease, and more frequently received neoadjuvant hormonal therapy compared to the prostatectomy group. The 2 groups were similar in Gleason score and, when applicable, duration of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy. Preoperative charges were 15.3% lower for prostatectomy than for brachytherapy (not statistically significant). Conversely, operative charges for prostatectomy were 13.5% higher (p = 0.04). The major difference among preoperative, operative and postoperative charges was for those incurred postoperatively by the brachytherapy group, which were 56.0% higher than those for the prostatectomy group ($2,285.20 versus $1,007.20, p = 0.0004). CONCLUSIONS: Transperineal interstitial seed implantation is perceived by many as more cost-effective than radical prostatectomy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. We demonstrated that when such patients were followed for 1 year, the comprehensive charges for radical prostatectomy and interstitial brachytherapy were equivalent.     

腔镜下前列腺癌根治切除术与近距离放射治疗比较研究

目的：比较腔镜下耻骨后前列腺根治切除术（LRRP）和近距离放射疗法（BT）治疗局限性前列腺癌的疗效。方法从2005年4月至2009年4月间,前瞻性的收集和登记100例患者,平均年龄（65.9±8.9）岁,其中：A 组50例患者接受 LRRP,B 组50例患者接受 BT。治疗前和治疗后,分别对所有患者进行体格检查,测定前列腺特异性抗原和国际前列腺症状评分,IIEF-5评分和癌症患者生活质量调查问卷及前列腺癌特异性量表（ EORTC-QLQ-C30/ PR25）。并记录两种治疗方法术后5年无瘤存活率,及随访6个月、1年、5年的功能相关性结局指标。结果研究共纳入100例患者,其中87例完成了5年随访评估。LRRP 和 BT 两种治疗方法术后5年无生化复发生存率分别为86.7%及88.1%。在随访至6个月和1年时,这两种治疗方法都导致患者的生活质量明显下降。B 组患者尿路刺激症状发生率明显高于 A 组,且持续更久,但勃起功能较 A 组好。随访5年后,两组功能相关结局改变无明显统计学差异。结论 LRRP 和 BT 是局限性前列腺癌的两种不同的治疗方法,二者的短期并发症,如尿路刺激症状和勃起功能障碍有所不同,但是,二者有着相似的5年生化无瘤存活率。因此,为进一步评估二者的总体有效率,我们需要开展更大样本量及更长随访时间的随机对照试验研究。     

Charge and length of hospital stay analysis of radical retropubic prostatectomy and transperineal prostate brachytherapy

PURPOSE: For the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer radical retropubic prostatectomy with its attendant hospital stay should be associated with higher charges than transperineal prostate brachytherapy. We report a comparative case series to determine patient charges and length of hospitalization of 2 modalities of monotherapy for localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 35 consecutive patients with clinically localized prostate cancer underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy (16) or transperineal prostate brachytherapy (19) at the Arthur James Cancer Hospital and Research Institute. Complete charge and length of hospital stay data were collected for each patient. Total charges were calculated and the 2 modalities were compared. RESULTS: Charge data were available in 33 cases. Average total charges in the prostatectomy and brachytherapy groups were $15,097 and $21,025, respectively ($5,928 difference, p <0.0001). The difference increased further when outliers were excluded from study. Average length of hospital stay and average charge in the prostatectomy group were 3.8 days and $1,897. The higher charges for transperineal prostatic brachytherapy were due to dosimetry calculations, radioactive seeds and seed implantation. CONCLUSIONS: At our institution the average total charges for transperineal prostate brachytherapy are significantly higher than those for radical retropubic prostatectomy.     

Brachytherapy versus radical prostatectomy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer

In an effort to help physicians offer their patients unbiased advice on the best alternatives for treatment of localized prostate cancer, we present a retrospective comparison of the effectiveness of brachytherapy and radical retropubic prostatectomy in 1305 men with stage T1 and T2 adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Data from 1305 patients treated in our community-based private practice urology group from 1993 to 2002 were reviewed, and patients were classified by initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and risk grouping. Risk grouping was defined by preoperative PSA levels and Gleason scores. We used time to PSA-indicated recurrence as the measure of efficacy. Brachytherapy and radical prostatectomy provided similar responses to treatment (no significant differences given the sample size, length of follow-up, and numerical differences observed) for localized prostate cancers. A prospective study is presently underway to evaluate the respective outcome of these procedures (including incidence of incontinence and impotence), and assess their impact on patient quality of life. The results presented here fail to show any superiority of prostatectomy over brachytherapy with palladium-103 (TheraSeed; Theregenics Corp., Buford, GA) with respect to time until relapse indicated by PSA level increase (> 0.2 ng/mL for prostatectomy and >1.5 ng/mL and rising for brachytherapy). In fact, any differences between treatments favor brachytherapy, particularly for intermediate- and high-risk groups. We conclude that both brachytherapy and prostatectomy should be offered, equally and without bias, to men with stage T1 or T2 organ-confined prostate cancer.     

Comparison of Radical Prostatectomy and Iodine 125 Interstitial Radiotherapy for the Treatment of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: A 7-Year Biochemical (PSA) Progression Analysis

Objectives. To evaluate the relative efficacy of brachytherapy to radical prostatectomy, we compared biochemical progression rates from a published series of men who underwent iodine 125 (¹²⁵I) interstitial radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer to a similar group of men who underwent anatomic radical prostatectomy using appropriate end points.Methods. Seventy-six men who underwent anatomic radical prostatectomy between 1988 and 1990 were carefully matched for Gleason score and clinical stage to a recently reported contemporary series of patients treated at another institution with ¹²⁵I brachytherapy without adjuvant treatment. The definition of biochemical progression was a serum PSA level greater than 0.2 ng/mL after anatomic radical prostatectomy and greater than 0.5 ng/mL for brachytherapy-treated patients.Results. The 7-year actuarial PSA progression-free survival following anatomic radical prostatectomy was 97.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.6% to 99.7%) for this group of men selected to match the brachytherapy group, compared to 79% (95% CI not published) for men treated with ¹²⁵I interstitial radiotherapy.Conclusions. Using comparative end points for biochemical-free progression, failure rates may be higher following ¹²⁵I interstitial radiotherapy compared to anatomic radical prostatectomy. These data provide a better comparison of biochemical progression than previously published studies and emphasize the need for caution in interpreting the relative efficacy of brachytherapy in controlling localized prostate cancer.     

Risk-adjusted analysis of positive surgical margins following laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVES: To prospectively compare in a contemporary and contemporaneous series the positive surgical margin (PSM) rate between laparoscopic (LRP) and retropubic (RRP) radical prostatectomy at the same institution. METHODS: Between 1 January 2003 and 30 June 2005, 1177 consecutive men with clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate underwent radical prostatectomy at the same institution: 485 laparoscopically and 692 through a retropubic approach. Partin table probability of organ-confined (OC) disease was used as an index of disease aggressiveness: The PSM rate between the two approaches was compared, with adjustment for the OC probability. RESULTS: Overall both surgical approaches had a comparable PSM rate of 11.3% after LRP and 11% after RRP. In a logistic regression analysis adjusting for OC probability, there was no statistically significant difference between LRP and RRP (odds ratio [OR]: 1.156; 95% confidence interval [%95 CI], 0.792, 1.686; p=0.5). There was a statistically significant decrease over time in the rate of PSM for LRP (OR: 0.71 per 100 patients treated; %95 CI, 0.57, 0.89; p=0.003), while that of RRP was unchanged (OR: 1.06 per 100 patients treated; %95 CI, 0.94, 1.21; p=0.3; p=0.002 for interaction between change over time and procedure). CONCLUSIONS: In our institution, laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy provide comparable PSM rates for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. The PSM rate over the study period remained unchanged in the RRP experience, indicating a mature and well-established operative technique, while that of LRP underwent a significant decrease, demonstrating that the procedure and therefore the results continued to evolve during the study.     

Incidence of urethral stricture after primary treatment for prostate cancer: data From CaPSURE

PURPOSE: We determined the incidence of treatment for urethral stricture, including bladder neck contracture, after primary treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 6,597 men with newly diagnosed, localized prostate cancer and no history of urethral stricture disease were identified in the CaPSURE database. Treatment modalities included radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, cryotherapy, androgen deprivation therapy, radical prostatectomy plus external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy plus external beam radiotherapy and watchful waiting. The database was queried for patient reported history or International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision/Common Procedural Terminology codes consistent with stricture treatment after prostate cancer therapy. Time to obstruction was examined by the Kaplan-Meier method. Risk factors for stricture were examined in a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: The incidence of stricture treatment was 344 of 6,597 cases (5.2%, range 1.1% to 8.4% by prostate cancer treatment type). Median followup was 2.7 years. In the multivariate model primary treatment type (p <0.0001), body mass index (p <0.0001) and age (p = 0.0002) were significant predictors of stricture treatment. After controlling for age and body mass index the HR for treatments compared to watchful waiting was significantly higher for radical prostatectomy (HR = 10.4, p <0.0001) and brachytherapy plus external beam radiotherapy (HR = 4.6, p = 0.0231). After radical prostatectomy most failures occurred within the first 6 months and failures were rare after 24 months, whereas after radiation failures occurred later. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of urethral stricture treatment after prostate cancer therapy is 1.1% to 8.4% depending on cancer treatment type. Risk was highest after radical prostatectomy or brachytherapy plus external beam radiotherapy and in those with advanced age or obesity. Stricture after radical prostatectomy occurred within the first 24 months, whereas onset was delayed after radiation.     

经腹膜外腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术（附151例报告）

目的：探讨经腹膜外腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术（ELRP）的手术技巧和疗效。方法：回顾分析2006年1月～2011年1月,行ELRP151例患者的临床资料。术前均经病理检查确诊,患者平均年龄69（53～78）岁,盆腔CT、MRI和核素全身骨扫描无盆腔淋巴结、精囊和骨转移。结果：术前TPSA平均16．40（3．27～165．00）μg／L,Gleason评分〈7分63例（41．7％）,7分58例（38．4％）,〉7分30例（19．9％）。平均手术时间178（60～390）min,平均出血量260（20～1000）ml,术中输血5例（3．3％）。直肠损伤1例（0．67％）,术后病理检查切缘阳性14例（9．3％）,局部闭孔淋巴结转移5例（3．3％）。术后留置导尿平均13．5（6～69）天,平均住院时间14．4（4～74）天。术后随访平均27（4~62）个月,不同程度尿失禁31例（20．5％）。尿道狭窄2例（1．3％）,均行尿道狭窄冷刀切开。单侧腹股沟斜疝2例（1．3％）,出现生化复发15例（9．9％）。结论：ELRP是安全可行的,创伤小,术后恢复快。镜下吻合技术和控制出血是手术成功的关键。     

非气腹腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术11例报告

目的：探讨非气腹腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术的可行性及疗效。方法2012年7月～2013年6月,行非气腹腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术11例。前列腺特异抗原（PSA）（19．6±17．2） ng/ml,前列腺体积33～78 ml,平均41 ml。临床分期cT1期3例,cT2期6例,cT3期2例。取耻骨上正中切口3～5 cm,用手指钝性分离膀胱前间隙。在腹腔镜或示指引导下于双侧麦氏点下2 cm与脐下弧形穿出3个操作通道。应用悬吊器械提拉下腹壁创造操作的空间,30°腹腔镜通过脐部的通道进入,术者通过两侧的通道及下腹部的小切口进入器械操作。手术操作与传统的腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术相同。结果11例手术顺利,手术时间（227±61） min,术中出血量（360±101） ml,无直肠损伤等严重并发症。术后病理均为前列腺腺癌,无切缘阳性。随访1～11个月,平均4个月,排尿通畅,无尿失禁。 PSA 0～0．21 ng/ml,平均0．11 ng/ml。结论非气腹腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术微创、安全、有效。