Comparison between 3D and 2D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer treatment

Feiya YANG,Yong LIU,Mengtong WANG,Nianzeng XING
DOI: https://doi.org/10.13201/j.issn.1001-1420.2017.06.011
2017-01-01
Journal of Clinical Urology
Abstract:Objective:To compare the short-term clinical efficacy between 3D and 2D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy(LRP).Method:From February 2012 to June 2016,the data from 114 patients with prostate cancer were analyzed.The patients were randomized to two groups:the former 2D-LRP(53 cases)and the latter 3D-LRP (61 cases).We compared operative time,urethral anastomosis time,blood loss,urinary incontinence rate,nerve sparing rate,PT2 positive surgical margin,follow-up period,biochemical recurrence rate between the two groups.Result:All of the 114 cases successfully underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy without conversion to open operation.As for the items of 2D vs 3D,the mean operative time were 128.9(range,60-190)min and 99.2(range,40-180)min,mean urethral anastomosis time were 23.1 (range,10-30)min and 20.5 (range,10-28)min,mean blood loss were 110.4(range,10-1 500)ml and 86.6(range,10-800)ml,the rate of nerve sparing were 17% and 18%,PT2 positive rate of surgical margins were 8.3% and 5.4%,urinary incontinence rate were 28.3% and 22.9 % (postoperative 1 month),and 7.4 % and 4.9 % (postoperative 3 months) respectively.The postoperative pathology were all prostate cancer and Gleason score was from 5 to 9.All cases were followed up for approximately 20.7(range,4-36)months and 20.8(range,4-33)months in 2D and 3D group respectively.There were four and two cases of biochemical recurrence in 2D and 3D group respectively.Conclusion:Compared with 2D laparoscopy,3D LRP is safe and feasible,and makes anatomic compartments clearer,surgical separation more meticulous and suture more accurate.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?