1104 EARLY RESULTS ON A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED TRIAL: ROBOTIC-ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY (RALP) VERSUS RETROPUBIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY (RRP) STUDY

摘要

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized1 Apr 20111104 EARLY RESULTS ON A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED TRIAL: ROBOTIC-ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY (RALP) VERSUS RETROPUBIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY (RRP) STUDY Carlo Camargo Passerotti, Alberto Azoubel Antunes, Marcelo Takeo Rufato Okano, Jose Arnaldo Shiomi da Cruz, Adriano Joao Nesrallah, José Pontes, Marcos Freire, Rodrigo Pessoa, Marcos Francisco Dall'Oglio, and Miguel Srougi Carlo Camargo PasserottiCarlo Camargo Passerotti Sao Paulo, Brazil More articles by this author , Alberto Azoubel AntunesAlberto Azoubel Antunes Sao Paulo, Brazil More articles by this author , Marcelo Takeo Rufato OkanoMarcelo Takeo Rufato Okano Sao Paulo, Brazil More articles by this author , Jose Arnaldo Shiomi da CruzJose Arnaldo Shiomi da Cruz Sao Paulo, Brazil More articles by this author , Adriano Joao NesrallahAdriano Joao Nesrallah Sao Paulo, Brazil More articles by this author , José PontesJosé Pontes Sao Paulo, Brazil More articles by this author , Marcos FreireMarcos Freire Sao Paulo, Brazil More articles by this author , Rodrigo PessoaRodrigo Pessoa Sao Paulo, Brazil More articles by this author , Marcos Francisco Dall'OglioMarcos Francisco Dall'Oglio Sao Paulo, Brazil More articles by this author , and Miguel SrougiMiguel Srougi Sao Paulo, Brazil More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.2620AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Currently, there are still several controversies about which technique should be the gold-standard for the prostate cancer surgical treatment. Minimally invasive techniques have become the most frequent procedure performed in United States, considering the major impact of a choice between RALP and RRP may have in our society and in the medical community, regarding patients better treatment, costs and better outcomes, we aim to present the early results of the first prospective randomized study to compare RALP and RRP techniques for prostate cancer treatment. METHODS Two hundred patients with localized prostate cancer (T1c, T2a e T2b), with up 70 years and PSA < 15ng/ml; prostate size smaller than 50g at the ultrasonography were randomly divided into two groups: 100 patients were submitted to RALP and the other 100 patients were submitted to RRP. Assessment was made on intraoperative data, potency was assessed through IIEF questionnaire and continence through ICIQ questionnaire. RESULTS Regarding intraoperative data we found less aspirated blood loss on RALP (291.03ml vs 1018.26ml, p=0.0001). There were shorter but not significant operative time on open surgical technique (94.5 min on RRP vs 137.9 min on RALP, p= 0.14) and higher rates of positive margins on RALP (14% vs 10%, p=0.01). IIEF overall score on 1, 3 and 6 months follow-up favoured RALP over RRP (1 month: 5.89 vs 3.62 – p: 0.05, 3 months: 8.32 vs 2.38 – p: 0.0023 and 6 months: 10.82 vs 7.40 – p=0.04). In the other hand ICIQ scores initially favoured RRP (10.3 vs 13.8, p= 0.013, on 1 month follow-up), but in 3 months follow-up RRP score was higher than RALP (12.27 vs 11.19, p=0.878) and on 6 months follow-up RRP scores were once again numerically smaller than RALP (4.16 vs 6.49, p= 0.31) . CONCLUSIONS RALP is a safe technique. With good initial results, and regarding blood loss and potency even superior than RRP in our early assessment casuistic. Longer follow-up and other prospective randomized trial have to be made before we can reach a conclusion about which technique is superior and to which patients it is better. © 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 185Issue 4SApril 2011Page: e444 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Carlo Camargo Passerotti Sao Paulo, Brazil Mo