腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术

前列腺癌根治术是治疗局限性前列腺癌最有效的方法,随着腹腔镜技术的发展,腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术逐渐完善。本文就腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术的适应证、禁忌证、手术方式及淋巴清扫、手术并发症、手术效果等问题作一综述。     

机器人辅助腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术的研究进展

腹腔镜技术在根治性前列腺切除术中已得到广泛而成熟的运用.近十年来,伴随着机器人手术技术的不断更新改进,以Da Vinci系统为代表的机器人辅助下腹腔镜技术将泌尿外科手术引领到了一个崭新的领域,手术的精确度和灵活度被提高到了一个全新的高度.本文就其在围手术期的手术时间、出血量、术后并发症、手术的肿瘤效应及存在的问题和发展前景作一综述.     

腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术中耻骨后背血管复合体的处理

目的评价腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术中先处理耻骨后背血管复合体(dorsal vein complex,DVC)的临床意义。方法2006年8月~2007年4月,行腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术48例,切开膀胱颈部前先处理DVC。其中28例(58%)予2-0薇乔线缝扎;15例(31%)以PK刀处理;5例(10%)以LigaSure直接凝结、切断。结果48例手术均获成功,术中均未发生DVC损伤出血,无一例中转开放手术。手术时间150~230min,平均179.5min;术中出血量80~370ml,平均160.3ml。缝扎、PK刀及LigaSure处理DVC术中出血量分别为(160.0±64.3)ml、(162.3±87.7)ml、(156.0±45.6)ml;手术时间分别为(179.2±21.5)min、(181.0±21.9)min、(172.8±21.9)min。三种方法处理DVC时手术时间及出血量均无统计学差异(F=0.27,0.02,P>0.05)。结论腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术中切开膀胱颈部前先处理DVC,能减少出血,清晰手术视野,减少控尿机制的损伤,利于手术顺利进行及术后生理功能的恢复。     

腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术结合精神心理干预治疗局限性前列腺癌的临床研究

目的 研究腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术结合精神心理干预治疗局限性前列腺癌的临床应用效果。方法 通过对本院2015年2月至2017年12月就诊治疗的92例行腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术的患者临床资料做回顾性分析,并根据治疗方式的不同分为观察组、对照组（各46例）。对照组给予腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术治疗,观察组在对照组的基础上结合精神心理干预治疗。比较两组患者治疗前后的SAS、SDS、IPSS、QOL评分及术中情况、住院时间。结果 两组患者手术时间、住院时间、术中出血量情况比较差异均无明显统计学意义（P>0.05）;治疗后两组患者SAS、SDS评分均较治疗前降低（P<0.05）,且观察组治疗后SAS、SDS评分均较对照组下降明显（P<0.05）;治疗后两组患者IPSS、QOL评分均较治疗前下降（P<0.05）,且观察组IPSS、QOL评分均较对照组下降明显（P<0.05）。结论 腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术结合精神心理干预治疗局限性前列腺癌患者,可有效地改善其负性情绪,减轻排尿症状,提高生活质量。     

耻骨后前列腺癌根治术进展

耻骨后前列腺癌根治术（radical retropubic Drostatectomy，RRP）是局限性前列腺癌的标准治疗方式之一，术中出血、术后尿失禁、勃起功能障碍（ED）等是影响手术质量的关键问题。近年来，国内外学者不断探索研究，以提高手术的治愈率，降低手术并发症。现将与手术有关的最新进展综述如下。     

腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术治疗早期前列腺癌

目的：探讨腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术(LRP)治疗早期前列腺癌的疗效。方法：对30例T＼M分期T1b～T2期的前列腺癌患者，行腹腔镜下经腹途径LRP术。将30例按时间顺序分前、后两组，统计两组的手术时间、出血量、围手术期并发症，提出预防和处理并发症的措施。结果：30例手术均获成功。前、后两组平均手术时间分别为390和270min；平均出血量430和160ml。在前组(早期)发生耻骨后静脉丛损伤导致大出血3例，术中分离损伤膀胱5例，直肠损伤2例，术后出现尿外渗7例，出现膀胱尿道吻合口狭窄2例。后组1例出现尿外渗和1例直肠损伤。30例术后3周拔除尿管排尿通畅。术后复查PSA值小于0．3mg／L。结论：随着术式的改进和并发症的减少，LRP已成为我们治疗早期前列腺癌的标准术式之一。     

达芬奇辅助腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术的研究进展

达芬奇系统是一种高级机器人平台,其设计的理念是通过更精细的操作,实施复杂的外科手术。自2000年Binder和Kramer在德国完成了第一例机器人前列腺癌根治术以来,该术式在国外得到迅速推广,目前在北欧国家超过一半以上的前列腺癌根治手术由手术机器人完成,而在美国,这一比例更是高达90%,已成为前列腺癌根治手术的“金标准”。在前列腺癌高发的美国和欧洲大部分国家达芬奇辅助腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术(RALP)几乎取代了单纯腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术（LRP）。在泌尿外科手术中,达芬奇系统在前列腺癌根治术中应用最为广泛。达芬奇系统在前列腺癌根治术中的优势已被我国泌尿外科医师广泛认可。本文将对达芬奇辅助腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术的研究进展作一综述。     

腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术治疗高危前列腺癌的临床体会

目的：探讨腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术在高危前列腺癌治疗中的价值。方法回顾性分析2012年3月～2014年11月本院腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术治疗26例高危前列腺癌的临床资料。患者平均年龄65．2岁,术前检查单独PSA≥20ng／mL者9例;兼具PSA≥20ng／mL并Gleason评分≥8分者17例;术前诊断T3 b和T4期各1例。3例患者因前列腺体积过大术前分别行3～6个月新辅助内分泌治疗。手术方式均采用经腹膜外路径腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术,同时行盆腔淋巴结清扫。结果26例手术均获成功,平均手术时间152min,平均出血量85mL,无输血病例。所有患者均于术后两周拔除导尿管,8例拔管后尿失禁,经盆底训练后于1周至3个月恢复控尿。术后病理T2a～T2b,Gleason评分≤7分者10例;T2c～T4,Gleason评分≥8分者16例。术中清扫淋巴结数目平均5．5个,淋巴结阳性3例;切缘阳性4例,术后控尿恢复后予局部放射治疗。19例获访3～30个月,所有患者均控尿良好,PSA≤0．2ng／mL。结论对高危前列腺癌患者采用以根治性前列腺癌切除术为核心的综合治疗策略安全有效,可使患者获益。     

临床局限性前列腺癌根治术前的激素辅助治疗

为了提高前列腺癌的手术治疗效果，对２３例临床局限性前列腺癌的病人于根治术前进行激素辅助治疗。采用ＬＨＲＨ类药物加Ｆｌｕｔａｍｉｄｅ，使用时间为３～８个月。结果显示：大多数病人在使用激素后血清ＰＳＡ显著降低，术后病理证实８６９％的病人为阴性手术边界；约一半病人在使用激素后临床分期降低，但与病理分期差异较大；仅１例有淋巴转移。４例病人术后病理分期为ＰＴ０，但经ＰＳＡ及ＰＳＡＰ免疫组化染色后发现３例存在残余癌细胞。结论：前列腺癌根治术前辅助激素治疗能改善根治术的临床效果，远期疗效有待进一步观察。     

耻骨后顺行前列腺癌根治术30例临床体会

目的 总结耻骨后顺行前列腺癌根治术的手术经验及疗效.方法 采用耻骨后顺行前列腺癌根治术治疗前列腺癌患者30例.平均年龄64(51～73)岁.T_1 8例、T_2 15例、T_3 7例.手术采用先离断前列腺底部和膀胱颈,游离舣侧精囊及输精管并顺行向下分离直至前列腺尖部,紧贴前列腺尖部切断尿道,将尿道与膀胱颈重新吻合. 结果 30例手术顺利,手术时间平均150(75～240)min,术中出血量平均350(100～1600)ml,无直肠、输尿管等周围脏器损伤,无围手术期严重并发症.术后病理报告均为前列腺腺癌,切缘阳性4例.30例平均随访25(6～48)个月,均存活,排尿通畅,无尿失禁者.术前13例有勃起功能者术后7例(54%)恢复勃起功能. 结论 耻骨后顺行前列腺癌根治术并发症发生率低、出血量少,切缘阳性率低,手术效果良好.     

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.     

经腹途径与经腹膜外途径机器人辅助腹腔镜下根治性前列腺切除术临床疗效的Meta分析

目的:采用Meta分析的方法比较经腹途径机器人辅助腹腔镜下根治性前列腺切除术(Tp-RALRP)与经腹膜外途径机器人辅助腹腔镜下根治性前列腺切除术(Ep-RALRP)治疗局限性前列腺癌的临床疗效。方法:通过计算机检索Pubmed,EMBASE,Web of science,EBSCO,Cochrane library,万方,中国知网(CNKI),中国生物医学数据库(CBM)(2000年1月~2016年11月),入选文献必须对比Tp-RALRP与Ep-RALRP的疗效,包含手术时间、术中出血量、术后留置导尿时间、术后卧床时间、围手术期并发症发生率、切缘阳性率、与肠道有关的并发症发生率、术后尿道吻合口瘘发生率、术后控尿率等指标中的至少一项,运用Meta分析方法比较两种手术方式在治疗局限性前列腺癌疗效上的差异。统计学软件采用Rev Man 5.3软件。结果:经仔细筛选后共有8篇文献纳入该研究,其中Tp-RALRP组451例,Ep-RALRP组676例。与Tp-RALRP相比,Ep-RALRP具有手术时间短(WMD=21.39,95%CI 7.54~35.24,P=0.002),术后卧床时间短(WMD=0.85,95%CI 0.61~1.09,P0.001)、与肠道有关的并发症发生率低(RR=9.74,95%CI 3.26~29.07,P0.001)等优势,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。两种手术方式的术中出血量(WMD=-8.12,95%CI-27.86~11.63,P=0.42)、术后留置导尿时间(WMD=-0.17,95%CI-0.55~0.21,P=0.38)、围手术期并发症发生率(RR=1.34,95%CI-0.97~1.87,P=0.08)、切缘阳性率(RR=1.24,95%CI 0.95~1.61,P=0.12)、术后尿道吻合口瘘发生率(RR=0.98,95%CI 0.46~2.10,P=0.95)、术后3个月控尿率(RR=0.96,95%CI 0.91~1.00,P=0.05)及术后6个月控尿率(RR=1.00,95%CI 0.97~1.02,P=0.82)等方面差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:与Tp-RALRP相比,Ep-RALRP具有手术时间短、术后卧床时间短、与肠道有关的并发症发生率低等优点,因此,Ep-RLRP可能是治疗局限性前列腺癌更好的方法。但未来仍然需要开展更多多中心、大样本的随机对照研究进而更好地评估两种手术方式的优劣。     

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review of comparative studies

PURPOSE: We compared the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy through a systematic assessment of the literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature databases were searched from 1996 to December 2004 inclusive. Studies comparing transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, extraperitoneal endoscopic radical prostatectomy or robot assisted radical prostatectomy with open radical retropubic prostatectomy or radical perineal prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer were included. Comparisons between different laparoscopic approaches were also included. RESULTS: We identified 30 comparative studies, of which none were randomized controlled trials. There were 21 studies comparing laparoscopic with open prostatectomy with a total of 2,301 and 1,757 patients, respectively, and 9 comparing different laparoscopic approaches with a total of 1,148 patients. In terms of safety there did not appear to be any important differences in the complication rate between laparoscopic and open approaches. However, blood loss and transfusions were lower for laparoscopic approaches. In terms of efficacy operative time was longer for laparoscopic than for open prostatectomy but length of stay and duration of catheterization were shorter. Positive margin rates and recurrence-free survival were similar. Continence and potency were not well reported but they appeared similar for the 2 approaches. There were no important differences between laparoscopic approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is emerging as an alternative to open radical prostatectomy but randomized, controlled trials considering patient relevant outcomes, such as survival, continence and potency, with sufficient followup are required to determine relative safety and efficacy.     

LRP与RRP治疗局限性前列腺癌的临床效果及安全性分析

目的 探讨局限性前列腺癌患者采用腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术(Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy,LRP)与耻骨后前列腺癌根治术(Radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer after pubic bone,RRP)治疗的临床效果及安全性差异.方法 本研究采用回顾性研究方法对本院泌尿外科收治的120例行前列腺癌根治术患者的临床资料、术后随访资料进行分析,根据手术方式分为LRP组69例、RRP组51例,采用SPSS17.0统计软件对两组患者的资料进行分析,分析比较两组患者的手术效果及安全性差异.结果 LRP组患者的手术时间(220.6 ±61.5)min显著的高于RRP组(P＜0.05),LRP组的术中出血量、手术后疼痛评分、术后胃肠道功能恢复时间、导尿管留置时间、住院时间均显著的低于RRP组患者且差异具有统计学意义(P＜0.05).LRP组患者的手术总并发症为2.90％,显著的低于RRP组的15.67％且差异具有统计学意义(P＜0.05).LRP组的切缘阳性率17.39％与RRP组的19.61％差异不显著(P＞0.05),LRP组术后1年、2年的生化复发率8.70％、26.09％与RRP组的7.84％、21.57％差异不具有统计学意义(P＞0.05),LRP组的术后1年完全尿控率92.75％与RRP组的94.12％比较差异不具有统计学意义(P＞0.05).LRP组的术后勃起良好率66.67％显著的低于术前的97.10％(P＜0.05),RRP组的术后勃起良好率56.86％显著的低于术前的98.04％(P＜0.05),两组患者术后勃起良好率比较差异不具有统计学意义(x2=1.203,P＞0.05).结论 局限性前列腺癌患者采用LRP治疗与RRP治疗取得相似的临床效果,但是具有创伤小、术中失血量少、患者恢复较快、手术并发症率低的优点.     

腹腔镜与开腹手术治疗局限性前列腺癌的比较研究

目的:比较腹腔镜与开腹手术治疗局限性前列腺癌的临床效果。方法:回顾分析经腹膜外途径腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术19例和耻骨后前列腺癌根治术14例的临床资料,比较两种术式的手术时间、术中出血量、术后胃肠功能恢复时间、术后住院天数、围手术期并发症等指标。结果:两组在手术时间和盆腔引流管保留时间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。腹腔镜组比开放组术中出血少、胃肠功能恢复快、术后住院时间短且并发症发生率低(P<0.05)。结论:与耻骨后前列腺癌根治术相比,腹膜外途径腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术具有患者创伤小、术后康复快、并发症发生率低等优点,值得临床推广应用。     

Radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of the prostate: robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy in a matched-pair analysis

Abstract Purpose: To determine whether previous transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) compromises the surgical outcome and pathologic findings in patient who underwent either radical robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) or open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) after TURP, because TURP is reported to complicate radical prostatectomy and there are conflicting data. Patients and Methods: From July 2008 to July 2010, 357 patients underwent RALP. Of these, 19 (5.3%) patients had undergone previous TURP. Operative and perioperative data of patients were compared with those of matched controls selected from a database of 616 post-RRP patients. Matching criteria were age, clinical stage, the level of preoperative prostate-specific-antigen, the biopsy Gleason score, the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification score, and prostate volume assessed during transrectal ultrasonography. All RRP and RALP procedures were performed by experienced surgeons. Results: Mean time to prostatectomy was 67.4 months in the RALP group and 53.1 months in the RRP group. Mean operative time was 217±51.9 minutes for RALP and 174±57.7 minutes for RRP (P<0.05). The overall positive surgical margin rate was 15.8% in both groups (pT(2) tumors: 10.5% for RALP and 5.3% for RRP; P=1.0). Mean estimated blood loss was 333±144?mL in RALP patients and 1103±636?mL in RRP patients (P<0.001). The difference between preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin levels was 3.22±0.98?g/dL for RALP and 5.85±1.95?g/dL for RRP (P=0.0002). The RALP and RRP groups also differed in terms of hospital stay (8.58±1.17 vs 11.74±5.22 days; P=0.0037), duration of catheterization (7.95±5.69 vs 11.78±6.97 days; P=0.0016), postoperative complications according to the Clavien classification system (6 vs 15 patients; P=0.0027), and transfusion rate (0% vs 10.5%; P<0.001). Conclusion: RALP offers advantages over open radical prostatectomy after previous surgery. Although both techniques are associated with adequate surgical outcomes, RALP appeared to be preferable in our population of patients with previous prostate surgery.     

Comparison of mortality outcomes after radical prostatectomy versus radiotherapy in patients with localized prostate cancer: A population‐based analysis

Objectives: To compare the mortality outcomes of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy as treatment modalities for patients with localized prostate cancer. Methods: Our cohort consisted of 68 665 patients with localized prostate cancer, treated with radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy, between 1992 and 2005. Propensity‐score matching was used to minimize potential bias related to treatment assignment. Competing‐risks analyses tested the effect of treatment type on cancer‐specific mortality, after accounting for other‐cause mortality. All analyses were stratified according to prostate cancer risk groups, baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index and age. Results: For patients treated with radical prostatectomy versus radiotherapy, the 10‐year cancer‐specific mortality rates were 1.4 versus 3.9% in low‐intermediate risk prostate cancer and 6.8 versus 11.5% in high‐risk prostate cancer, respectively. Rates were 2.4 versus 5.9% in patients with Charlson Comorbidity Index of 0, 2.4 versus 5.1% in patients with Charlson Comorbidity Index of 1, and 2.9 versus 5.2% in patients with Charlson Comorbidity Index of ≥2. Rates were 2.1 versus 5.0% in patients aged 65–69 years, 2.8 versus 5.5% in patients aged 70–74 years, and 2.9 versus 7.6% in patients aged 75–80 years (all P < 0.001). At multivariable analyses, radiotherapy was associated with less favorable cancer‐specific mortality in all categories (all P < 0.001). Conclusions: Patients treated with radical prostatectomy fare substantially better than those treated with radiotherapy. Patients with high‐risk prostate cancer benefit the most from radical prostatectomy. Conversely, the lowest benefit was observed in patients with low‐intermediate risk prostate cancer and/or multiple comorbidities. An intermediate benefit was observed in the other examined categories.     

Prospective study of extended versus limited lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy with localized prostate cancer

Patients undergoing radical prostatectomy at our hospital from January 1995 until March 2008 were subjected to limited lymphadenectomy involving only the obturator nerve lymph node. In contrast to published reports, of 488 biopsies, we encountered only three cases of lymph node metastasis. Therefore, starting in April 2008, we conducted a prospective study of limited versus extended lymphadenectomy, the latter involving the obturator fossa and internal iliac lymph nodes. One hundred patients undergoing radical prostatectomy from April 2008 until January 2010 were divided into two groups depending on whether they underwent extended lymphadenectomy (n＝49) or limited lymphadenectomy (n＝51). There were no significant differences in the patient background, estimated blood loss, or operation time between the two groups. Lymphnode metastases were not detected in either group. A significantly greater number of lymph nodes was obtained from the extended lymphadenectomy group (average 14.1) than from the limited lymphadenectomy group (average 8.3 ; p＜0.01). Complications possibly attributable to lymphadenectomy included lymphocele in two patients in the limited group and one patient in the extended group. Extended lymphadenectomy was determined to be a safe procedure that provides the pathologist with a large sample size. None of the patients in either group harbored a detectable lymph node metastasis.