Radikal prostatektomi sonrası erektil fonksiyon açısından robotik cerrahi ile açık cerrahinin karşılaştırılması
AMAÇ: Prostat kanseri (PCa) nedeniyle kliniğimizde radikal prostatektomi uygulanan vakaları erektil fonksiyon açısından değerlendirmek ve uygulanan cerrahi teknikleri karşılaştırmaktır. GEREÇ ve YÖNTEMLER: Ekim 2012 – Şubat 2018 yılları arasında kliniğimizde radikal prostatektomi operasyonu uygulanan hastaların verileri retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Hastalar uygulanan cerrahi tekniğe göre iki gruba ayrıldı (Grup 1: açık, Grup 2: robotik). Erektil fonksiyonu değerlendirmek için hastalardan postoperatif 1., 6. ve 12. aylarda Uluslararası Erektil Fonksiyon İndeksi-5 (IIEF-EF) formunu doldurması istendi. IIEF-5 skoru >21 olan hastalar potent olarak kabul edildi. Gruplar postoperatif ereksiyon fonksiyonları açısından karşılaştırıldı. BULGULAR: Ortalama hasta yaşı 64,6±5,94 (50–79), ortalama prostat spesifik antijen (PSA) değeri 10,9±9,2 ng/dL olarak bulundu. Gruplar arasında yaş, PSA, preoperatif ve postoperatif gleason skoru, patolojik evre, nörovasküler demet korunma oranı, cerrahi sınır pozitiflik oranı ve preoperatif erektil fonksiyon açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark yoktu. Postoperatif potens oranı açısından açık ve robotik cerrahi arasında postoperatif 1., 6. ve 12. aylarda anlamlı bir farklılık bulunmamıştır. SONUÇ: Prostat kanseri nedeniyle cerrahi olarak tedavi edilen olgularda postoperatif erektil fonksiyonun korunması açısından, robotik cerrahi ile açık cerrahi benzer sonuçlara sahiptir.
Comparison of robotic surgery and open surgery for erectile function after radical prostatectomy
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the patients who underwent radical prostatectomy in our clinic for the treatment of prostate cancer in terms of erectile function, and to compare them according to the applied surgical technique. MATERIALS and METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of the patients who underwent radical prostatectomy between October 2012 and February 2018 retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups according to the applied surgical technique (Group 1: open, Group 2: robotic). To evaluate the erectile function, patients were requested to fill out the International Index of Erectile FunctionErectile Function-5 (IIEF-5) at postoperative 1st, 6th and 12th months. Patients with IIEF-5 score >21 were considered as potent. Groups were compared in terms of postoperative erectile function. RESULTS: Mean age was 64.6±5.94 (50–79) years, mean prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 10.9±9.2 ng/dl. There were no statistically difference between compared groups in terms of age, PSA, preoperative and postoperative Gleason score, pathological stage, neurovascular bundle protection, positive surgical margin and preoperative erectile function. There were no statistical significant in terms of erectile function between robotic and open surgery techniques on the 1st, 6th and 12th month postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Robotic surgery has achieved similar outcomes to open surgery in terms of erectile function for the surgical treatment of prostate cancer.
___
- Schröder FH, Carter HB, Wolters T, van den Bergh RC, Gosselaar C, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ. Early detection of prostate cancer in 2007. Part 1: PSA and PSA kinetics. Eur Urol 2008;53:468–77. [CrossRef]
- Kim SC, Song C, Kim W, Kang T, Park J, Jeong IG, et al. Factors determining functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy: robot-assisted versus retropubic. Eur Urol 2011 Sep; 60:413–9. [CrossRef]
- Trinh QD, Bjartell A, Freeland SJ, Hollenbeck BK, Hu JC, Shariat SF, et al. A systematic review of the volume-outcome relationship for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2013;64:786–98. [CrossRef]
- Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, Rider JR, Taari K, Busch C, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2014;370:932–42. [CrossRef]
- Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:405–17. [CrossRef]
- Moran PS, O’Neil M, Teljeur C, Flattery M, Murphy LA, Smyth G, Ryan M. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open and laparoscopic approaches: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Int J Urol 2013;20:312–21. [CrossRef]
- Nilsson AE, Carlsson S, Laven BA, Wiklund NP. Karolinska prostatectomy: a robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2006;40:453–8. [CrossRef]
- Hanglind E, Carlsson S, Stranne J, Wallerstedt A, Wilderang U, Thorsteinsdottir T, et al. Urinary Incontinence and Erectile Dysfunction After Robotic Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy: A Prospective, Controlled, Nonrandomised Trial. Eur Urol 2015;68:216–25. [CrossRef]
- American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th ed. VA: Arlington; 2013. [CrossRef]
- Gratzke C, Angulo J, Chitaley K, Dai YT, Kim NN, Paick JS, et al. Anatomy, physiology, and pathophysiology of erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med 2010;7(1 Pt 2):445–75. [CrossRef]
- Rosen RC, Cappelleri JC, Smith MD, Lipsky J, Peña BM. Development and evaluation of an abridged, 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) as a diagnostic tool for erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 1999;11:319–26.
- Çimen Hİ, Sağlam HS. Robotik prostat cerrahisi ve cinsel fonksiyon. Androl Bull 2016;18:79–82.
- Masterson TA, Cheng L, Boris RS, Koch MO. Open vs. roboticassisted radical prostatectomy: a single surgeon and pathologist comparison of pathologic and oncologic outcomes. Urol Oncol 2013;31:1043–8. [CrossRef]
- Rocco B, Matei DV, Melegari S, Ospina JC, Mazzoleni F, Errico G, et al. Robotic vs open prostatectomy in a laparoscopically naive center: a matched-pair analyses. BJU Int 2009;104:991–5. [CrossRef]
- Di Pierro GB, Baumeister P, Stucki P, Beatrice J, Danuser H, Mattei A. A prospective trial comparing consecutive series of open retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a centre with a limited caseload. Eur Urol 2011;59:1–6. [CrossRef]
- Krambeck AE, DiMarco DS, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Myers RP, Blute ML, Gettman MT. Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques. BJU Int 2009;103:448–53. [CrossRef]
- Finkelstein J, Eckersberger E, Sadri H, Taneja SS, Lepor H, Djavan B. Open Versus Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: The European and US Experience. Rev Urol 2010;12:35–43.
- Zorn KC, Wille MA, Thong AE, Katz MH, Shikanov SA, Razmaria A, et al. Continued improvement of perioperative, pathological and continence outcomes during 700 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies. Can J Urol 2009;16:4742–9.
- ISSN: 2587-2524
- Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
- Başlangıç: 1999
- Yayıncı: Turgay Arık
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler
İnfertil bireylerde stres ve stresle başa çıkma yaklaşımları
KAAN SÖNMEZ, RAMAZAN KARABULUT, ZAFER TÜRKYILMAZ, Abdullah Can BAŞAKLAR
Mustafa Suat BOLAT, Mehmet ÖZEN, Önder ÇINAR, Recep BÜYÜKALPELLİ, RAMAZAN AŞCI
Rekürren varikosel tanı ve tedavisi
Fosfodiesteraz Tip-5 inhibitörlerinin semen parametrelerine etkisi
HACI İBRAHİM ÇİMEN, Hacı Can DİREK, FİKRET HALİS, OSMAN KÖSE, AHMET GÖKÇE, HASAN SALİH SAĞLAM