Article Sidebar

PDF
Date Published: 02/01/2024
Abstract Views: 70
Views PDF: 57
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v533i1.7751
Issue
Vol. 533 No. 1 (2023)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Trần , C. T. ., & Vương , N. B. . (2024). SOME FACTORS AFFECTING OUTCOMES OF RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY FOR LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER. Vietnam Medical Journal, 533(1). https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v533i1.7751

SOME FACTORS AFFECTING OUTCOMES OF RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY FOR LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER

Chí Thanh Trần 1, Ngọc Biên Vương 2,
1 Viet Duc hospital
2 Medical Center of Văn Yên District, Yên Bái Province

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate some factors affecting outcomes of radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. Subjects and methods: From January 2015 to January 2023, 64 cases of open radical prostatectomy were performed at our clinic. Demographic datas, variables before and after surgery, and outcomes were taken. Results: The higher the Gleason score, the later the tumor stage after surgery, and the higher the rate of biochemical recurrence after surgery. Urinary incontinence 12 months after surgery in the two groups with and without erectile nerve preservation was not statistically different (p>0.05). The group of surgical patients with preservation of the erectile neurovascular bundle had better post-operative erectile recovery (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Factors affecting the likelihood of biological recurrence after surgery are the Gleason score and the local invasion level of the cancer. The factor influencing erectile dysfunction after surgery is the preservation of the erectile nerve bundle during surgery.

Article Details

References

1. H. H. Young (1905). The early diagnosis and radical cure of carcinoma of the prostate. Being a study of 40 cases and presentation of a radical operation which was carried out in four cases. Johns Hopkins Hosp. Bull., 16: 315-321.
2. Ahmed Magheli, Mark L. Gonzalo, Liming Su, Thomas J. Guzzo (2010). Impact of surgical technique (open vs laparoscopic vs robotis assisted) on pathological and biological outcomes following radical prostatectomy: an analysis using propensity score matching. BJU International, 107: 1956-1962.
3. Francesco Greco, Sigrid Wagner, M Raschid Hoda, Felix Kawan (2010). Laparoscopic vs open retropubic intrafascial nerve sparing radical prostatectomy: surgical and functional outcomes in 300 patiens. BJU International, 106: 543-547.
4. A. G. Renehan, M. Tyson, M. Egger và cộng sự (2008). Body-mass index and incidence of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies. The lancet, 371 (9612), 569-578.
5. W. C. Buschemeyer III và S. J. Freedland (2007). Obesity and prostate cancer: epidemiology and clinical implications. European urology, 52 (2), 331-343.
6. M. Jefferson, R. R. Drake, M. Lilly và cộng sự (2020). Co-morbidities in a retrospective cohort of prostate cancer patients. Ethnicity & Disease, 30 (Suppl 1), 185.
7. Vũ Nguyễn Khải Ca, Hoàng Long, Nguyễn Hoài Bắc và cộng sự (2012). Nhân 8 trường hợp cắt toàn bộ tiền liệt tuyến tận gốc tại Bệnh viện Việt Đức. Y Học TP. Hồ Chí Minh, 16 (3), 169-173.
8. Nguyễn Tiến Đệ và Vũ Lê Chuyên (2012). Phẫu thuật tuyến tiền liệt tận gốc qua nội soi ngoài phúc mạc: Biến chứng phẫu thuật. Y Học TP. Hồ Chí Minh, 16 (3), 93-97.
9. S. J. Freedland, A. W. Partin, J. I. Epstein và cộng sự (2004). Biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy in men with pathologic organ‐confined disease: pT2a versus pT2b. Cancer: Interdisciplinary International Journal of the American Cancer Society, 100 (8), 1646-1649.
10. D. Cao, A. S. Kibel, F. Gao và cộng sự (2010). The Gleason score of tumor at the margin in radical prostatectomy is predictive of biochemical recurrence. The American journal of surgical pathology, 34 (7), 994-1001.