中国医药指南
中國醫藥指南
중국의약지남
CHINA MEDICINE GUIDE
2013年
5期
24-25
,共2页
前列腺癌%不同途径%前列腺癌根治术
前列腺癌%不同途徑%前列腺癌根治術
전렬선암%불동도경%전렬선암근치술
Prostate cancer%Transperitoneal approach%Radical prostatectomy
目的：观察经耻骨后入路腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术（LRP）、经腹腔入路LRP与耻骨后前列腺癌根治术（RRP）治疗局限性前列腺癌的疗效。方法根据手术方式和手术入路的不同，将48例行前列腺癌根治术的前列腺癌患者分为经腹入路LRP组13例、RRP组11例、耻骨后入路：LRP组24例，并且将耻骨后入路LRP组分两亚组，比较各组疗效。结果RRP组平均手术时间明显短于LRP组；术中出血量、平均留置导尿时间、术后住院天数均长于LRP组；经腹腔入路LRP组术后住院时间、术后肠道功能恢复时间均长于经耻骨后入路LRP组，两组比较有统计学意义（P<0.05），平均导尿留置时间和引流管去除时间均短于经耻骨后入路LRP组；LRP前新辅助治疗组与未行新辅助治疗组，两组数据无明细差异。结论LRP具有手术出血少、术后恢复快等优点，控瘤效果、尿控效果与RRP相一致。经腹LRP患者术后恢复时间较长，但手术缝合简单，留置导尿时间等较经耻骨后LRP。
目的：觀察經恥骨後入路腹腔鏡前列腺癌根治術（LRP）、經腹腔入路LRP與恥骨後前列腺癌根治術（RRP）治療跼限性前列腺癌的療效。方法根據手術方式和手術入路的不同，將48例行前列腺癌根治術的前列腺癌患者分為經腹入路LRP組13例、RRP組11例、恥骨後入路：LRP組24例，併且將恥骨後入路LRP組分兩亞組，比較各組療效。結果RRP組平均手術時間明顯短于LRP組；術中齣血量、平均留置導尿時間、術後住院天數均長于LRP組；經腹腔入路LRP組術後住院時間、術後腸道功能恢複時間均長于經恥骨後入路LRP組，兩組比較有統計學意義（P<0.05），平均導尿留置時間和引流管去除時間均短于經恥骨後入路LRP組；LRP前新輔助治療組與未行新輔助治療組，兩組數據無明細差異。結論LRP具有手術齣血少、術後恢複快等優點，控瘤效果、尿控效果與RRP相一緻。經腹LRP患者術後恢複時間較長，但手術縫閤簡單，留置導尿時間等較經恥骨後LRP。
목적：관찰경치골후입로복강경전렬선암근치술（LRP）、경복강입로LRP여치골후전렬선암근치술（RRP）치료국한성전렬선암적료효。방법근거수술방식화수술입로적불동，장48례행전렬선암근치술적전렬선암환자분위경복입로LRP조13례、RRP조11례、치골후입로：LRP조24례，병차장치골후입로LRP조분량아조，비교각조료효。결과RRP조평균수술시간명현단우LRP조；술중출혈량、평균류치도뇨시간、술후주원천수균장우LRP조；경복강입로LRP조술후주원시간、술후장도공능회복시간균장우경치골후입로LRP조，량조비교유통계학의의（P<0.05），평균도뇨류치시간화인류관거제시간균단우경치골후입로LRP조；LRP전신보조치료조여미행신보조치료조，량조수거무명세차이。결론LRP구유수술출혈소、술후회복쾌등우점，공류효과、뇨공효과여RRP상일치。경복LRP환자술후회복시간교장，단수술봉합간단，류치도뇨시간등교경치골후LRP。
Objective?To compare and study the treatment efficacy among laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) from opistho-pubis, LRP from abdominal cavity, open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) as the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Methods 48 case of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer patients were divided into 13 cases of patients undergoing LRP from opistho-pubis,11 cases of patients undergoing RRP and 24 cases of patients undergoing LRP from abdominal cavity. Results The mean operationg time of RRP group was shorter than LRP group,The mean bleeding volume during operation of RRP group and duration of catheterization and hospitalization stay after operation were more than LRP group,Hospitalization stay after operation and the time of bowel function recovery during LRP group from abdominal cavity were longer than LRP group from opistho-pubis(P<0.05). There was no statistical difference between LRP with adjunctive therapy and LRP without adjunctive therapy. Conclusion LRP is not only featured with less blood loss and faster recovery, but also has the similar functional effect on tumor control and continence to RRP. The recovery time of LRP from abdominal cavity was longer but duration of catheterization was shorter than LRP from opistho-pubis.
