Cargando…

Randomized controlled trial comparing open anterograde anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy with retrograde technique

OBJECTIVE: Radical prostatectomy is the recommended treatment for localized prostate cancer; however, it is an invasive procedure that can leave serious morbidity. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy was introduced with the aim of reducing postoperative morbidity and facilitating rapid recovery com...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Carrerette, Fabricio B., Rodeiro, Daniela B., Filho, Rui T.F., Santos, Paulo A., Lara, Celso C., Damião, Ronaldo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Second Military Medical University 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10023527/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36942119
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2021.11.008
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: Radical prostatectomy is the recommended treatment for localized prostate cancer; however, it is an invasive procedure that can leave serious morbidity. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy was introduced with the aim of reducing postoperative morbidity and facilitating rapid recovery compared to the traditional Walsh's open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Therefore, a protocol was developed to perform an open prostatectomy comparable to that performed by robotics, but without involving novel instrumentation. METHODS: A total of 220 patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer underwent radical prostatectomy. They were divided into two groups: anterograde technique (115 patients) and the retrograde method (105 patients). The study outcomes were observed 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: No differences were found in terms of surgical time, hospital stay, and suction drainage. However, reduced bleeding was observed in the anterograde technique (p=0.0003), with rapid anastomosis duration (p=0.005). Among the patients, 60.9% undergoing the anterograde technique were continent 3 months after surgery compared to 42.9% treated by the retrograde method (p=0.007). Additionally, fewer complications in terms of the number (p=0.007) and severity (p=0.0006) were observed in the anterograde technique. CONCLUSION: The anterograde method displayed increased efficiency in reducing complications, compared to the retrograde technique.