Publication:
To spare or not to spare? bladder neck and robotic radical prostatectomy

dc.contributor.coauthorKeske, Murat
dc.contributor.departmentSchool of Medicine
dc.contributor.kuauthorCanda, Abdullah Erdem
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteSCHOOL OF MEDICINE
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-09T23:11:09Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.description.abstractTo present the outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy (RARP) in patients with and without bladder neck sparing. Material and Methods: A single surgeon series of cases after having an experience of >50 procedures were included. Group-1 included patients with bladder neck spared, n=141 and Group-2 included patients with bladder neck not spared, n=73. Mean patient age, preoperative serum PSA, bilateral neurovascular bundle (NVB) sparing and unilateral NVB-sparing were 64.4 versus 65.2 years (p=0.396); 12.1 versus 12.6 ng/ml (p=0.846); 89 (63.1%) versus 53 (72.6%) and 32 (22.6%) versus 14 (19.1%), respectively in Groups 1 and 2. Results: Mean prostate weights were 56.03 gr and 72.9 gr in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (p=0.001). Rocco suture was performed in 11.3% and 9.6% of Groups 1 and 2, respectively (p=0.694). Mean console time, intraoperative blood loss, duration of hospital stay and urethral catheter removal time in Groups 1 and 2 were 154.2 vs 164.3 min (p=0.164); 91.8 vs 103.7 cc (p=0.098); 4.01 vs 4.04 days (p=0.879) and 8.6 vs 9.5 days (p=0.04), respectively. Positive surgical margin rates were similar (43 (30.4%) vs 19 (26.0%) in both groups (p=0.494). Mean lymph node yielded were 13 vs 14 in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (p=0.602). Cystography on postoperative day7, day-14 and day-21 showed no leakage and urethral catheter was removed in 122 (86.5%), 15 (10.6%) and 4 (2.8%) of Group-1, and 61 (83.5%), 10 (13.6%) and 2 (2.7%) of Group-2, respectively. of the available 185 patients, following removal of the catheter, immediate continence rate was 58% and 31% in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (p=0.001). on postop 1st-month, 70% and 41% of the patients in Groups 1 and 2, respectively were fully continent (p=0.002). on postop 3rd-month, 81% and 60% of the patients in Groups 1 and 2, respectively were fully continent (p=0.004). on postop 6th-month, 92% and 82% of the patients in Groups 1 and 2, respectively were fully continent (p=0.053). / Öz: Mesane boynu korunan ve korunmayan hastalarda robotik radikal prostatektomi (RARP) sonuçlarının karşılaştırılması. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Tek cerrahın gerçekleştirdiği ve ilk 50 vakanın öğrenme eğrisi nedenli çalışma dışı bırakıldığı ameliyatlar alındı. Grup 1 (mesane boynu korunan, n=141) ve Grup 2 (mesane boynu korunmayan, n=73)’de sırasıyla ortalama hasta yaşı 64.4 ve 65.2 (p=0.396), serum PSA düzeyi 12.1 ve 12.6 (p=0.846), bilateral nörovasküler demet (NVB) koruma 89 (%63.1) ve 53 (%72.6) ve unilateral NVB koruma 32 (%22.6) ve 14 (%19.1) hasta idi. Bulgular: Grup 1 ve 2’de sırasıyla ortalama prostat ağırlığı 56.03 ve 72.9 gr (p=0.001), posterior rabdosfinkter rekonstrüksiyonu (rocco sütürü) oranı %11.3 ve %9.6 (p=0.694), ortalama konsol süresi 154.2 ve 164.3 dakika (p=0.164), intraoperatif kan kaybı 91.8 ve 103.7 cc (p=0.098), hastanede yatış süresi 4.01 ve 4.04 gün (p=0.879), üretral kateter çekim süresi 8.6 ve 9.5 gün (p=0.04), pozitif cerrahi sınır oranı 43 (%30.4) ve 19 (%26.0) (p=0.494), ortalama çıkarılan lenf nodu sayıları 13 ve 14 (p=0.602) idi. Postoperatif 7., 14. ve 21. günlerde sistogramda kaçak olmayan ve üretral kateteri çekilen hasta sayısı sırasıyla Grup 1’de 78 (%66.1), 37 (%31.3) ve 3 (%2.5); Grup 2 de 61 (%83.5), 10 (%13.6) ve 2 (%2.7) idi. En az 1 yıllık takip süresi olan hastalardan (n=185), erken kontinans (sonda çekilmesini takiben kontinan) oranları Grup 1 ve Grup 2 de sırasıyla %58 ve %31 idi (p=0.001). Total kontinan hasta sayısı sırasıyla Grup 1 ve 2’de postoperatif 1. ayda %70 ve %41 (p=0.002); 3. ayda %81 ve %60 (p=0.004); 6. ayda %92 ve %82 (p=0.053) idi. Sonuç: Mesane boynu koruyucu RARP postoperatif erken üriner kontinans kazanılmasında avantaja sahiptir.
dc.description.fulltextNo
dc.description.harvestedfromManual
dc.description.indexedbyTR Dizin
dc.description.openaccessN/A
dc.description.peerreviewstatusN/A
dc.description.publisherscopeNational
dc.description.readpublishN/A
dc.description.sponsoredbyTubitakEuN/A
dc.description.versionN/A
dc.identifier.doi10.33719/yud.488845
dc.identifier.embargoN/A
dc.identifier.issn1305-2489
dc.identifier.quartileBakılacak
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.33719/yud.488845
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14288/9573
dc.keywordsProstate
dc.keywordsRobotics
dc.keywordsBladder neck spare / Prostat
dc.keywordsRobotik
dc.keywordsMesane boynu koruma
dc.language.isotur
dc.publisherAvrasya Üroonkoloji Derneği
dc.relation.affiliationKoç University
dc.relation.collectionKoç University Institutional Repository
dc.relation.ispartofYeni Üroloji Dergisi
dc.relation.openaccessN/A
dc.rightsN/A
dc.subjectProstate
dc.subjectRobotic surgery
dc.subjectProstat
dc.subjectRobotik cerrahi
dc.titleTo spare or not to spare? bladder neck and robotic radical prostatectomy
dc.title.alternativeKorumak ya da korumamak? robotik radikal prostatektomide mesane boynu*
dc.typeJournal Article
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.contributor.kuauthorCanda, Abdullah Erdem
relation.isGoalOfPublicationa9786601-9431-4553-9a46-013bb366fb87
relation.isGoalOfPublication.latestForDiscoverya9786601-9431-4553-9a46-013bb366fb87
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublicationd02929e1-2a70-44f0-ae17-7819f587bedd
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryd02929e1-2a70-44f0-ae17-7819f587bedd
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication17f2dc8e-6e54-4fa8-b5e0-d6415123a93e
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery17f2dc8e-6e54-4fa8-b5e0-d6415123a93e

Files