[Functional outcomes of transvesical single-site versus extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for XXXX ].

@entity1 @entity263 @entity190 @entity1486 @entity3816
OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative data, pathological results and functional outcomes of transvesical single- site laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (TVSSLRP) with those of nerve-sparing extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (nsELRP) in the treatment of @entity263 (PCa). METHODS: Fifty @entity1 with low-risk organ-confined PCa were randomly assigned to two groups of equal number to receive TVSSLRP and nsELRP, respectively. Comparisons were made between the two groups of @entity1 in such demographic and baseline data as age, comorbidity, body mass index (BMI), serum @entity1486 , prostate volume, bioptic Gleason score, clinical stage, IIEF-5 score, nocturnal penile tumescence (NPT), penile brachial index (PBI), and penile arterial blood flow velocity as well as in such surgery-related parameters as operation duration, @entity190 , blood transfusion, @entity3816 , positive surgical margin, catheterization time, hospital stay, and postoperative Gleason score, pathologic stage, urinal pad use, @entity1486 level, IIEF-5 score, NPT, PBI and PABFV. RESULTS: All the operations were successfully performed. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups either in the demographic and baseline data or in intraoperative @entity190 , blood transfusion rate, complications, and positive surgical margin. No @entity3816 and positive surgical margins were found in either group. Compared with nsELRP, TVSSLRP achieved a significantly shorter operation duration ([151.46    40.68] min vs [105.92    26.21] min, P <0.05), catheterization time ([13.01    1.64] d vs [11.24    1.17] d, P <0.05), and hospital stay ([15.76    4.65] d vs [12.92    4.29] d, P <0.05). On the first day and at 1, 3 and 6 months after catheter removal, the urinary continence rates in the TVSSLRP and nsELRP groups were 84% vs 52% (P <0.05), 100% vs 84%, 100% vs 96%, and 100% vs 96%, respectively; and at 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery, the erectile potency rates were 48% vs 28% (P <0.05), 64% vs 52%, and 76% vs 68%, respectively, with an IIEF-5 score >=  18, all evidently higher in the TVSSLRP than in the nsELRP group. The penile brachial index and arterial blood flow velocity of the two groups of @entity1 exhibited no significant differences before and after surgery, nor did postoperative complications (grade II) between the TVSSLRP and nsELRP groups (32% vs 40%, P >0.05). The Gleason score and pathologic stage were increased after surgery, but with remarkable differences between the two groups (P >0.05). No biochemical recurrence was found in either group during a 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: With the advantages of safety and rapid postoperative recovery, both TVSSLRP and nsELRP are feasible for the treatment of low-risk organ-confined PCa, but the former may achieve an earlier recovery of urinary continence and erectile function than the latter.
