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
_version_ 1784908902132875264
author Carrerette, Fabricio B.
Rodeiro, Daniela B.
Filho, Rui T.F.
Santos, Paulo A.
Lara, Celso C.
Damião, Ronaldo
author_facet Carrerette, Fabricio B.
Rodeiro, Daniela B.
Filho, Rui T.F.
Santos, Paulo A.
Lara, Celso C.
Damião, Ronaldo
author_sort Carrerette, Fabricio B.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10023527
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Second Military Medical University
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100235272023-03-19 Randomized controlled trial comparing open anterograde anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy with retrograde technique Carrerette, Fabricio B. Rodeiro, Daniela B. Filho, Rui T.F. Santos, Paulo A. Lara, Celso C. Damião, Ronaldo Asian J Urol Original Article 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. Second Military Medical University 2023-04 2021-11-25 /pmc/articles/PMC10023527/ /pubmed/36942119 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2021.11.008 Text en © 2022 Editorial Office of Asian Journal of Urology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Carrerette, Fabricio B.
Rodeiro, Daniela B.
Filho, Rui T.F.
Santos, Paulo A.
Lara, Celso C.
Damião, Ronaldo
Randomized controlled trial comparing open anterograde anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy with retrograde technique
title Randomized controlled trial comparing open anterograde anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy with retrograde technique
title_full Randomized controlled trial comparing open anterograde anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy with retrograde technique
title_fullStr Randomized controlled trial comparing open anterograde anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy with retrograde technique
title_full_unstemmed Randomized controlled trial comparing open anterograde anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy with retrograde technique
title_short Randomized controlled trial comparing open anterograde anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy with retrograde technique
title_sort randomized controlled trial comparing open anterograde anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy with retrograde technique
topic Original Article
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT carrerettefabriciob randomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingopenanterogradeanatomicradicalretropubicprostatectomywithretrogradetechnique
AT rodeirodanielab randomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingopenanterogradeanatomicradicalretropubicprostatectomywithretrogradetechnique
AT filhoruitf randomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingopenanterogradeanatomicradicalretropubicprostatectomywithretrogradetechnique
AT santospauloa randomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingopenanterogradeanatomicradicalretropubicprostatectomywithretrogradetechnique
AT laracelsoc randomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingopenanterogradeanatomicradicalretropubicprostatectomywithretrogradetechnique
AT damiaoronaldo randomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingopenanterogradeanatomicradicalretropubicprostatectomywithretrogradetechnique