普通腹腔镜下与经耻骨后根治性前列腺切除术的比较研究
发布时间：2018-09-11 14:58
【摘要】：目的:比较普通腹腔镜下根治性前列腺切除术(laparoscopic radical prostatectomy,LRP)与经耻骨后根治性前列腺切除术(retropubic radical prostatectomy,RRP)治疗临床局限性前列腺癌(prostate cancer,PCa)的疗效。方法回顾性分析2008年1月至2014年12月于我院泌尿外科行根治性前列腺切除术(radical prostatectomy,RP)的119名PCa患者的临床资料,其中63人行LRP,56人行RRP。比较两组两组患者的年龄、体重指数(body mass index,BMI)、术前前列腺特异性抗原(prostate-specific antigen,PSA)、前列腺体积、术前Gleason评分、术前T分期、手术时间、术中出血量、肠道功能恢复时间、术后住院时间、并发症、切缘阳性(positive surgical margin,PSM)情况、术后1年生化复发(biochemical recurrence,BCR)情况。结果(1)LRP和RRP组术前数据比较,差异都没有统计学意义(P值均大于0.05)。(2)LRP和RRP组手术时间分别为(182.7±48.0)min、(246.7±53.8)min(P0.05),术中出血量分别为(199.0±108.6)ml、(369.3±137.9)ml(P0.05),肠道功能恢复时间分别为(3.2±0.9)天、(4.3±1.1)天(P0.05),术后住院时间分别为(12.8±3.6)天、(15.8±3.5)天(P0.05),两组数据比较差异都具有统计学意义。(2)LRP和RRP组并发症比较,P0.05,差异具有统计学意义。(4)LRP和RRP组PSM情况以及术后1年BCR情况比较,P值均小于0.05,差异都没有统计学意义。结论LRP较RRP手术时间缩短,术中出血量明显减少,肠道功能恢复时间较快,术后住院时间缩短,且并发症较少。LRP和RRP治疗局限性PCa的效果相似。
[Abstract]:Objective: to compare the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (laparoscopic radical prostatectomy,LRP) and retropubic radical prostatectomy (retropubic radical prostatectomy,RRP) in the treatment of localized prostate cancer (prostate cancer,PCa). Methods Clinical data of 119 PCa patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (radical prostatectomy,RP) in urology from January 2008 to December 2014 in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed, of which 63 cases were treated with LRP,56 and RRP.. Age, body mass index (body mass index,BMI), preoperative prostate specific antigen (prostate-specific antigen,PSA), prostate volume, preoperative Gleason score, preoperative T stage, operative time, intraoperative bleeding volume, recovery time of intestinal function, postoperative hospitalization time were compared between the two groups. Complications, positive margin of (positive surgical margin,PSM, 1 year after operation biochemical recurrence (biochemical recurrence,BCR). Results (1) the preoperative data of LRP and RRP were compared. There was no significant difference (P > 0. 05). (2). The operative time of LRP and RRP group was (182.7 卤48. 0) min, (246.7 卤53. 8) min (P 0.05), the amount of intraoperative bleeding was (199.0 卤108.6) ml, (369.3 卤137.9) ml (P0.05), the recovery time of intestinal function was (3. 2 卤0. 9) days, (4. 3 卤1. 1) days (P0.05), the postoperative hospitalization time was (12. 8 卤3. 6) days and (15. 8 卤3. 5) days (P0.05). The differences were statistically significant. (2) the complications of LRP and RRP were significantly higher than that of RRP (P 0.05). (4) the PSM in LRP and RRP and the BCR in 1 year after operation were all less than 0.05, and the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion compared with RRP, LRP has shorter operative time, less intraoperative bleeding, faster recovery time of intestinal function, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and less complications. LRP and RRP have similar effect in the treatment of localized PCa.
【学位授予单位】：郑州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：R737.25
本文编号：2237026
[Abstract]:Objective: to compare the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (laparoscopic radical prostatectomy,LRP) and retropubic radical prostatectomy (retropubic radical prostatectomy,RRP) in the treatment of localized prostate cancer (prostate cancer,PCa). Methods Clinical data of 119 PCa patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (radical prostatectomy,RP) in urology from January 2008 to December 2014 in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed, of which 63 cases were treated with LRP,56 and RRP.. Age, body mass index (body mass index,BMI), preoperative prostate specific antigen (prostate-specific antigen,PSA), prostate volume, preoperative Gleason score, preoperative T stage, operative time, intraoperative bleeding volume, recovery time of intestinal function, postoperative hospitalization time were compared between the two groups. Complications, positive margin of (positive surgical margin,PSM, 1 year after operation biochemical recurrence (biochemical recurrence,BCR). Results (1) the preoperative data of LRP and RRP were compared. There was no significant difference (P > 0. 05). (2). The operative time of LRP and RRP group was (182.7 卤48. 0) min, (246.7 卤53. 8) min (P 0.05), the amount of intraoperative bleeding was (199.0 卤108.6) ml, (369.3 卤137.9) ml (P0.05), the recovery time of intestinal function was (3. 2 卤0. 9) days, (4. 3 卤1. 1) days (P0.05), the postoperative hospitalization time was (12. 8 卤3. 6) days and (15. 8 卤3. 5) days (P0.05). The differences were statistically significant. (2) the complications of LRP and RRP were significantly higher than that of RRP (P 0.05). (4) the PSM in LRP and RRP and the BCR in 1 year after operation were all less than 0.05, and the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion compared with RRP, LRP has shorter operative time, less intraoperative bleeding, faster recovery time of intestinal function, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and less complications. LRP and RRP have similar effect in the treatment of localized PCa.
【学位授予单位】：郑州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：R737.25
【相似文献】
相关期刊论文 前3条
1 梅拥平,陈一峰,孙春荣,徐航;微型腹腔镜与普通腹腔镜在胆囊切除术中的应用比较[J];江苏医药;2003年08期
2 金鑫;刘瑜;;普通腹腔镜两孔法胆囊切除术157例临床分析[J];现代医药卫生;2010年14期
3 ;[J];;年期
相关会议论文 前1条
1 刘林莉;曾俊;;输尿管镜替代普通腹腔镜单孔单通道鞘状突高位结扎术的护理配合[A];中华护理学会第16届全国手术室护理学术交流会议论文汇编（上册）[C];2012年
相关硕士学位论文 前1条
1 李建华;普通腹腔镜下与经耻骨后根治性前列腺切除术的比较研究[D];郑州大学;2016年
，本文编号：2237026
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/yixuelunwen/zlx/2237026.html
