Organ sparing treatments

器官保留治疗
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:保留网膜(OP)对局部晚期胃癌(LAGC)的影响仍存在争议。本研究旨在探讨OP与大网膜切除术(OR)对LAGC患者远期预后的影响。
    方法:对包括PubMed、WebofScience,Embase,Cochrane图书馆一直持续到2024年2月。采用Stata12.0软件进行统计学分析。主要结果是评估OP对LAGC患者长期预后的影响,包括总生存期(OS)和无复发生存期(RFS)。
    结果:共纳入6项病例对照研究,包括1897名患者。OP组包括844名患者,而OR组包括1053例患者。研究结果表明,OP组的OS(HR=0.72,95%CI:0.58-0.90,P=0.003)和5年RFS(HR=0.79,95%CI:0.63-0.99,P=0.038)优于OR组。亚组分析表明,在韩国,OP组的5年OS(HR=0.64,P=0.003)和5年RFS(HR=0.69,P=0.005)也优于OR组。然而,对T3-T4期肿瘤进行的亚组分析显示,两组间OS(P=0.083)和5年RFS(P=0.173)无统计学差异.
    结论:与OR相比,OP在LAGC患者中显示出非劣效性,可以被认为是根治性胃切除术的潜在治疗选择。
    BACKGROUND: The effect of omentum preservation (OP) on locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the long-term prognosis of LAGC patients with OP versus omentum resection (OR).
    METHODS: A comprehensive search of databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted up until February 2024. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata 12.0 software. The primary outcome was to assess the impact of OP on the long-term prognosis of patients with LAGC, including overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS).
    RESULTS: A total of six case-control studies were included, encompassing a cohort of 1897 patients. The OP group consisted of 844 patients, while the OR group comprised 1053 patients. The study results showed that the OS (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58-0.90, P = 0.003) and 5-year RFS (HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63-0.99, P = 0.038) in the OP group were superior to those observed in the OR group. Subgroup analysis indicated that 5-year OS (HR = 0.64, P = 0.003) and 5-year RFS (HR = 0.69, P = 0.005) in the OP group were also better than those in the OR group in Korea. However, the subgroup analysis conducted on stage T3-T4 tumors revealed no statistically significant differences in OS (P = 0.083) and 5-year RFS (P = 0.173) between the two groups.
    CONCLUSIONS: Compared with OR, OP shows non-inferiority in patients with LAGC and can be considered a potential treatment option for radical gastrectomy.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:为了评估围手术期,肿瘤学,与标准根治性膀胱切除术(SRC)相比,保留生殖器官的根治性膀胱切除术(ROPRC)治疗女性膀胱癌的功能结局。
    方法:在2023年11月对几个科学数据库进行了系统搜索。我们对感兴趣的主要结局进行了系统评价和累积荟萃分析,遵守PRISMA和AMSTAR准则。该研究在PROSPERO(CRD42024501522)中注册。
    结果:荟萃分析包括10项研究,共有2015名参与者。与SRC相比,ROPRC显示手术时间和术后禁食时间显着减少(MD-45.69,95%CI-78.91〜-12.47,p=0.007,MD-0.69,95%CI-1.25〜-0.13,p=0.02,分别)。功能成果,白天失禁率(OR4.94,95%CI1.53〜15.91,p=0.008)和夜间失禁率(OR5.91,95%CI1.94〜18.01,p=0.002),女性性功能指数(MD5.72,95%CI0.19〜11.26,p=0.04),在ROPRC组显著改善。在估计失血方面,ROPRC和SRC之间没有显着差异,住院时间,术后总并发症,轻微并发症或严重并发症。肿瘤学上,两种手术均显示出具有可比性的结果,在阳性手术切缘方面无显着差异,肿瘤复发率,总生存率,癌症特异性生存率,无复发生存率,或无进展生存期。
    结论:在女性膀胱癌患者中,ROPRC是一种可行且有效的替代SRC的方法,提供增强的功能结果和类似的肿瘤安全性。这些发现表明,ROPRC可以改善女性膀胱癌患者的生活质量,而不会影响癌症治疗的疗效。
    BACKGROUND: To evaluate the perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes of reproductive organ-preserving radical cystectomy (ROPRC) compared to standard radical cystectomy (SRC) in the treatment of female bladder cancer.
    METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in November 2023 across several scientific databases. We executed a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis of the primary outcomes of interest, adhering to the PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines. The study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024501522).
    RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 10 studies with a total of 2015 participants. ROPRC showed a significant reduction in operative time and postoperative fasting period compared to SRC (MD - 45.69, 95% CI - 78.91 ~ - 12.47, p = 0.007, and MD - 0.69, 95% CI - 1.25 ~ - 0.13, p = 0.02, respectively). Functional outcomes, both daytime continence rate (OR 4.94, 95% CI 1.53 ~ 15.91, p = 0.008) and nighttime continence rate (OR 5.91, 95% CI 1.94 ~ 18.01, p = 0.002), and sexual function measured by the Female Sexual Function Index (MD 5.72, 95% CI 0.19 ~ 11.26, p = 0.04), were significantly improved in the ROPRC group. There were no significant differences between ROPRC and SRC in terms of estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, overall postoperative complications, minor complications or major complications. Oncologically, both procedures showed comparable outcomes with no significant differences in positive surgical margins, tumor recurrence rates, overall survival, cancer-specific survival, recurrence-free survival, or progression-free survival.
    CONCLUSIONS: ROPRC is a viable and effective alternative to SRC in female bladder cancer patients, offering enhanced functional outcomes and similar oncological safety. These findings suggest that ROPRC can improve the quality of life in female bladder cancer patients without compromising the efficacy of cancer treatment.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:在I期上皮性卵巢癌(EOC)患者中,保留生育力手术(FSS)与根治性手术(RS)相比的肿瘤学结果仍然是一个争论的话题。我们评估了接受FSS和RS的I期EOC患者预后的风险比(RR)。
    方法:我们对PubMed进行了系统搜索,WebofScience,和Embase为截至2023年11月29日发表的文章。不涉及外科手术或包括怀孕患者的研究被排除。我们计算了无病生存率的RR,总生存率,和复发率。使用非随机干预研究中的Cochrane偏差风险(ROBINS-I)工具评估纳入研究的质量。荟萃分析在PROSPERO(CRD42024546460)上注册。
    结果:从5,529篇潜在相关文章中,我们确定了83篇文章进行初步筛选,并在最终的荟萃分析中包括12篇文章,包括2,906例上皮性卵巢癌患者。两组无病生存率无显著差异(RR[95%置信区间{CI}],0.90[0.51,1.58];P=0.71),总生存率(RR[95%CI],0.74[0.53,1.03];P=0.07),和复发率(RR[95%CI],1.10[0.69,1.76];P=0.68)。在敏感性分析中,仅在总生存率方面观察到显著差异(排除前:RR[95%CI],0.74[0.53-1.03],P=0.07;排除后:RR[95%CI],0.70[0.50-0.99];P=0.04)。
    结论:这是第一个也是唯一一个比较无病生存率的个体患者数据的荟萃分析,总生存率,早期上皮性卵巢癌患者行FSS和RS的复发率。FSS与RS相似的无病生存率和复发风险。我们假设FSS组的总生存率下降不能归因于上皮性卵巢癌的远处转移。
    BACKGROUND: The oncological outcomes of fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) compared to radical surgery (RS) in patients with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) remain a subject of debate. We evaluated the risk ratios (RRs) for outcomes in patients with stage I EOC who underwent FSS versus RS.
    METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase for articles published up to November 29, 2023. Studies that did not involve surgical procedures or included pregnant patients were excluded. We calculated the RRs for disease-free survival, overall survival, and recurrence rate. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. The meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024546460).
    RESULTS: From the 5,529 potentially relevant articles, we identified 83 articles for initial screening and included 12 articles in the final meta-analysis, encompassing 2,906 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. There were no significant differences between the two groups in disease-free survival (RR [95% confidence interval {CI}], 0.90 [0.51, 1.58]; P = 0.71), overall survival (RR [95% CI], 0.74 [0.53, 1.03]; P = 0.07), and recurrence rate (RR [95% CI], 1.10 [0.69, 1.76]; P = 0.68). In sensitivity analyses, the significant difference was observed only for overall survival (before exclusion: RR [95% CI], 0.74 [0.53-1.03], P = 0.07; after exclusion: RR [95% CI], 0.70 [0.50-0.99]; P = 0.04).
    CONCLUSIONS: This is the first and only individual patient data meta-analysis comparing disease-free survival, overall survival, and recurrence rate of patients with early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing FSS and RS. FSS was associated with similar disease-free survival and risk of recurrence as RS. We hypothesized that the decreased overall survival in the FSS group could not be attributed to distant metastases from epithelial ovarian cancer.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:中段保留胰腺切除术(MSPP)是一种相对较新的保留实质的手术,已被引入作为全胰腺切除术(TP)的替代治疗多中心良性和交界性胰腺疾病。迄今为止,只有36例以英语报告。
    方法:我们回顾了22篇发表的关于MSPP的文章,并报告了另一例病例。
    结果:我们的患者是一名49岁的日本男性,被诊断为由十二指肠和胰腺胃泌素瘤引起的Zollinger-Elison综合征(ZES)与1型多发性内分泌瘤综合征相关。由于他的年龄相对较小,我们避免了TP并选择了MSPP作为手术技术。患者出现B级术后胰瘘(POPF),经保守治疗改善。他没有进一步治疗就出院了。迄今为止,没有肿瘤复发,胰腺功能似乎得以维持。根据文献综述,MSPP的发病率高达54%,主要是由于POPF的高发病率(32%)。相比之下,没有围手术期死亡,术后胰腺功能与传统胰腺切除术后相当。
    结论:尽管POPF的发病率很高,MSPP看起来很安全,围手术期死亡率低,术后胰腺功能充足。
    OBJECTIVE: Middle segment-preserving pancreatectomy (MSPP) is a relatively new parenchymal-sparing surgery that has been introduced as an alternative to total pancreatectomy (TP) for multicentric benign and borderline pancreatic diseases. To date, only 36 cases have been reported in English.
    METHODS: We reviewed 22 published articles on MSPP and reported an additional case.
    RESULTS: Our patient was a 49-year-old Japanese man diagnosed with Zollinger-Elison syndrome (ZES) caused by duodenal and pancreatic gastrinoma associated with multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 1. We avoided TP and chose MSPP as the operative technique due to his relatively young age. The patient developed a grade B postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), which improved with conservative treatment. He was discharged without further treatment. To date, no tumor has recurred, and pancreatic function seems to be maintained. According to a literature review, the morbidity rate of MSPP is as high as 54%, mainly due to the high incidence of POPF (32%). In contrast, there was no perioperative mortality, and postoperative pancreatic function was comparable to that after conventional pancreatectomy.
    CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high incidence of POPF, MSPP appears to be safe, with low perioperative mortality and good postoperative pancreatic sufficiency.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:对脑转移瘤(BMs)需要预防性头颅放疗(PCI)或全脑放疗(WBRT)的患者,海马回避(HA)已被证明可以保护神经认知功能和生活质量。这里,我们的目的是评估海马和海马周围BMs的发生率以及随后在接受海马保留放疗的患者中局部治疗不足的风险.
    方法:MEDLINE,Embase,和Scopus用“海马”“脑肿瘤”,和相关术语。包括关于PCI或WBRT后海马和/或海马周围BMs发生率或海马失败率的试验报告。
    结果:包括40条记录,涵盖总共5,374名患者,超过32,570名BMs。大多数试验采用5毫米的边缘来定义HA区。在报告BM发病率的试验中,4.4%(范围0-27%)和9.2%(3-41%)的患者有海马和海马周围的BMs,分别。海马BMs最常见的危险因素是BMs的总数。HA-PCI或HA-WBRT后HA区内报告的失败率为4.5%(0-13%),在大多数情况下,放射外科是可以挽救的。SCLC组织学与海马衰竭的高风险无关(OR=2.49;p=0.23)。在与常规(非HA)PCI或WBRT组比较的试验中,HA并不增加海马失败率(OR=1.90;p=0.17)。
    结论:海马和海马周围BMs的总体发生率相当低,随后HA-PCI或HA-WBRT后局部治疗不足的风险较低。在没有参与的患者中,海马体应幸免,以保持神经认知功能和生活质量。
    In patients requiring prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) or whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) for brain metastases (BMs), hippocampal avoidance (HA) has been shown to preserve neurocognitive function and quality of life. Here, we aim to estimate the incidence of hippocampal and perihippocampal BMs and the subsequent risk of local undertreatment in patients undergoing hippocampal sparing radiotherapy.
    MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were searched with the terms \"Hippocampus\", \"Brain Neoplasms\", and related terms. Trials reporting on the incidence of hippocampal and/or perihippocampal BMs or hippocampal failure rate after PCI or WBRT were included.
    Forty records were included, encompassing a total of 5,374 patients with over 32,570 BMs. Most trials employed a 5 mm margin to define the HA zone. In trials reporting on BM incidence, 4.4 % (range 0 - 27 %) and 9.2 % (3 - 41 %) of patients had hippocampal and perihippocampal BMs, respectively. The most common risk factor for hippocampal BMs was the total number of BMs. The reported failure rate within the HA zone after HA-PCI or HA-WBRT was 4.5 % (0 - 13 %), salvageable with radiosurgery in most cases. SCLC histology was not associated with a higher risk of hippocampal failure (OR = 2.49; p = 0.23). In trials comparing with a conventional (non-HA) PCI or WBRT group, HA did not increase the hippocampal failure rate (OR = 1.90; p = 0.17).
    The overall incidence of hippocampal and perihippocampal BMs is considerably low, with a subsequent low risk of local undertreatment following HA-PCI or HA-WBRT. In patients without involvement, the hippocampus should be spared to preserve neurocognitive function and quality of life.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:综合保留神经外科文献中使用的术语,并提出标准化和非冲突的术语,以实现一致的词汇。
    方法:我们在PubMed上进行了文献检索,使用检索词“骨盆”和“保留神经”。排除非妇科手术和动物研究。进行了叙述性审查,专注于神经,筋膜,韧带,和腹膜后间隙.所有作者都讨论了包含论文的术语,他们是精通神经保护程序的外科医生和一名解剖学医生,并根据文献中出现的频率以及名称与其他结构重叠的可能性,就最合适的术语提出了建议。
    方法:不适用参与者::不适用干预::不适用结果::确定了224篇文章,其中81项包含在全文审查中。48%的文章关注宫颈癌,26%的文章关注深度浸润性子宫内膜异位症。研究结果是通过叙述和视觉合成的。骨盆解剖学术语的不一致现象在出版物中普遍存在。术语最多样化的结构是下胃下丛(IHP)的直肠分支,有14个名称。盆腔自主神经结构的标准化术语,筋膜,韧带,并提出腹膜后间隙以避免术语冲突。
    结论:通过更好地理解手术技术描述,外科医生和解剖学家应使用一致的术语来促进妇科手术中神经保护技术的增加。我们提出了一个标准化的术语,相信可以促进这一目标。
    OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the terminology utilized in nerve-sparing surgical literature and propose standardized and nonconflicting terms to allow for consistent vocabulary.
    METHODS: We performed a literature search on PubMed using the search terms \"pelvis\" and \"nerve-sparing.\" Nongynecologic surgery and animal studies were excluded. A narrative review was performed, focusing on nerves, fasciae, ligaments, and retroperitoneal spaces. Terms from included papers were discussed by all authors, who are surgeons versed in nerve-sparing procedures and one anatomist, and recommendations were made regarding the most appropriate terms based on the frequency of occurrence in the literature and the possibility of overlapping names with other structures.
    RESULTS: 224 articles were identified, with 81 included in the full-text review. Overall, 48% of articles focused on cervical cancer and 26% on deeply infiltrating endometriosis. Findings were synthesized both narratively and visually. Inconsistencies in pelvic anatomical nomenclature were prevalent across publications. The structure with the most varied terminology was the rectal branch of the inferior hypogastric plexus with 14 names. A standardized terminology for pelvic autonomic nerve structures, fasciae, ligaments, and retroperitoneal spaces was proposed to avoid conflicting terms.
    CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons and anatomists should use consistent terminology to facilitate increased uptake of nerve-sparing techniques in gynecologic surgery through a better understanding of surgical technique description. We have proposed a standardized terminology believed to facilitate this goal.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Letter
    暂无摘要。
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Letter
    暂无摘要。
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:胰十二指肠切除术(PD)具有相当大的并发症和晚期代谢发病率的手术风险。良性肿瘤的薄壁组织保留切除术有可能治愈与减少手术相关的短期和长期并发症相关的患者。
    方法:发布,Embase,我们在Cochrane图书馆中搜索了报告PD和保留十二指肠的全部(DPPHRt)或部分(DPPHRp)胰头切除良性肿瘤后手术相关并发症的研究.总共分析了38项队列研究,包括来自1262名患者的数据。总的来说,729例患者接受DPPHR和533例PD。
    结果:对于DPPHR,良性肿瘤的术前诊断与最终组织病理学的一致性为90.57%。在497、89和31例患者中观察到囊性和神经内分泌肿瘤(PNETs)和壶腹周围肿瘤(PAT)。分别。总的来说,161例上皮内乳头状黏液性肿瘤患者中有34例(21.1%)在最终的组织病理学中表现出严重的异型增生。荟萃分析,当比较DPPHRt和PD时,显示1/362(0.26%)和8/547(1.46%)患者的住院死亡率,[OR分别为0.48(95%CI0.15-1.58);p=0.21],再次手术频率分别为3.26%和6.75%,分别为[OR0.52(95%CI0.28-0.96);p=0.04]。随访45.8±26.6个月,14/340例导管内乳头状粘液性肿瘤/粘液性囊性肿瘤(IPMN/MCN,4.11%)和2/89PNET(2.24%)患者出现肿瘤复发。DPPHR或PD后切除边缘的局部复发和残留胰腺中肿瘤生长的复发具有可比性[OR0.94(95%CI0.178-5.34);p=0.96]。
    结论:DPPHR用于良性,与PD相比,癌前肿瘤为肿瘤复发风险低、早期手术相关并发症显著减少的患者提供了治愈方法.DPPHR有可能取代良性PD,癌前囊性和神经内分泌肿瘤。
    BACKGROUND: Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) has a considerable surgical risk for complications and late metabolic morbidity. Parenchyma-sparing resection of benign tumors has the potential to cure patients associated with reduced procedure-related short- and long-term complications.
    METHODS: Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries were searched for studies reporting surgery-related complications following PD and duodenum-preserving total (DPPHRt) or partial (DPPHRp) pancreatic head resection for benign tumors. A total of 38 cohort studies that included data from 1262 patients were analyzed. In total, 729 patients underwent DPPHR and 533 PD.
    RESULTS: Concordance between preoperative diagnosis of benign tumors and final histopathology was 90.57% for DPPHR. Cystic and neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNETs) and periampullary tumors (PATs) were observed in 497, 89, and 31 patients, respectively. In total, 34 of 161 (21.1%) patients with intraepithelial papillar mucinous neoplasm exhibited severe dysplasia in the final histopathology. The meta-analysis, when comparing DPPHRt and PD, revealed in-hospital mortality of 1/362 (0.26%) and 8/547 (1.46%) patients, respectively [OR 0.48 (95% CI 0.15-1.58); p = 0.21], and frequency of reoperation of 3.26 % and 6.75%, respectively [OR 0.52 (95% CI 0.28-0.96); p = 0.04]. After a follow-up of 45.8 ± 26.6 months, 14/340 patients with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms/mucinous cystic neoplasms (IPMN/MCN, 4.11%) and 2/89 patients with PNET (2.24%) exhibited tumor recurrence. Local recurrence at the resection margin and reoccurrence of tumor growth in the remnant pancreas was comparable after DPPHR or PD [OR 0.94 (95% CI 0.178-5.34); p = 0.96].
    CONCLUSIONS: DPPHR for benign, premalignant neoplasms provides a cure for patients with low risk of tumor recurrence and significantly fewer early surgery-related complications compared with PD. DPPHR has the potential to replace PD for benign, premalignant cystic and neuroendocrine neoplasms.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Meta-Analysis
    根治性膀胱切除术(RC)是器官局限性膀胱癌患者的金标准治疗方法。然而,尽管这种治疗取得了成功,许多接受原位新膀胱替代治疗的男性会出现明显的勃起功能障碍和泌尿症状,包括白天和夜间尿失禁。保留前列腺囊的根治性膀胱切除术(PCS-RC)与原位新膀胱术(ONB)已在文献中被描述为一种改善适当选择的患者功能预后的手术技术。我们对PCS-RC的手稿进行了系统的回顾和荟萃分析,并在2000年后发表了ONB。我们纳入了超过25例患者的回顾性和前瞻性研究,并将PCS-RC与保留神经或常规RC进行了比较。排除了整个前列腺(包括过渡区)的研究。比较研究进行了分析,以评估白天失禁的发生率,夜间尿失禁,与接受常规RC的患者相比,接受PCS-RC的患者的勃起功能令人满意。14份报告被列入最后审查。我们的数据表明,在接受PCS-RC和ONB的患者中,白天(83%-97%)和夜间失禁(60%-80%)的发生率很高。在比较研究中,荟萃分析结果表明,接受PCS-RC的患者与接受常规RC的患者相比,白天的尿失禁没有差异(RR:1.12;95%CI:0.72-1.73)。同样,两组间夜间尿失禁相似(RR:1.85;95%CI:0.57-6.00.PCS-RC系列患者的勃起功能得到改善(RR5.35;95%CI:1.82-15.74)。膀胱癌切缘阳性率和复发率与文献报道的常规RC相似,平均加权随访52.2个月。虽然一些研究使用了不同的前列腺癌(CaP)筛查技术,CaP的发生率很低(发生率0.02;95%CI:0.01-0.04),肿瘤结局与标准RC相似.与常规RC技术相比,PCS-RC与改善的夜间节制和勃起功能有关。需要进一步的工作来标准化手术前的CaP筛查,但数据表明,与RC相比,具有相似肿瘤结局的CaP发生率较低.
    Radical cystectomy (RC) is the gold standard treatment for patients with organ-confined bladder cancer. However, despite the success of this treatment, many men who undergo orthotopic neobladder substitution develop significant erectile dysfunction and urinary symptoms, including daytime and nighttime urinary incontinence. Prostate-capsule-sparing radical cystectomy (PCS-RC) with orthotopic neobladder (ONB) has been described in the literature as a surgical technique to improve functional outcomes in appropriately selected patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of manuscripts on PCS-RC with ONB published after 2000. We included retrospective and prospective studies with more than 25 patients and compared PCS-RC with nerve-sparing or conventional RC. Studies in which the entire prostate was spared (including the transitional zone) were excluded. Comparative studies were analyzed to assess rates of daytime continence, nighttime continence, and satisfactory erectile function in patients undergoing PCS-RC compared with those undergoing conventional RC. Fourteen reports were included in the final review. Our data identify high rates of daytime (83%-97%) and nighttime continence (60%-80%) in patients undergoing PCS-RC with ONB. In comparative studies, meta-analysis results demonstrate no difference in daytime continence (RR:1.12; 95% CI: 0.72-1.73) in those undergoing PCS-RC compared to those undergoing conventional RC. Similarly, nighttime continence was similar between the 2 groups (RR:1.85; 95% CI: 0.57-6.00. Erectile function was improved in those undergoing PCS-RC (RR 5.35; 95% CI: 1.82-15.74) in the PCS-RC series. Bladder cancer margin positivity and recurrence rates were similar to those reported in the literature with conventional RC with an average weighted follow-up of 52.2 months. While several studies utilized different prostate cancer (CaP) screening techniques, the rates of CaP were low (incidence 0.02; 95% CI:0.01-0.04), and oncologic outcomes were similar to standard RC. PCS-RC is associated with improved nighttime continence and erectile function compared to conventional RC techniques. Further work is needed to standardize CaP screening before surgery, but the data suggest low rates of CaP with similar oncologic outcomes when compared to RC.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

公众号