Boyan A. Stoykov, Nikolay H. Kolev, Rumen P. Kotsev, Fahd Al-Shargabi, Pencho P. Genov, Aleksandar Vanov, Jitian A. Atanasov, Manish Sachdeva, Pencho T. Tonchev and Maria I. Koleva
1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:7-30.
2. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, Rider JR, Taari K, Busch C, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostatecancer. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:932-42.
3. Wallis CJD, Saskin R, Choo R, Herschorn S, Kodama RT, Satkunasivam R, et al. Surgery versus radiotherapy forclinically-localized prostatecancer: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Eur Urol. 2016;70(1):21-30.
4. Roach M. Radical prostatectomy v radiation: only a
Nikolay H. Kolev, Jitian A. Atanasov, Vladislav R. Dunev, Boyan A. Stoykov, Rumen P. Kotsev, Alexander Vanov, Fahd Al-Shargabi, Pencho T. Tonchev, Sergey D. Iliev and Toni I. Stoyanov
1. Zhou CK, Check DP, Lortet-Tieulent J, Laversanne M, Jemal A, Ferlay J, et al. Prostatecancer incidence in 43 populations worldwide: An analysis of time trends overall and by age group. Int J Cancer. 2016;138(6):1388-400.
2. Albertsen PC. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy - fake innovation or the real deal? Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):365-7.
3. Montorsi F, Wilson TG, Rosen RC, Ahlering TE, Artibani W, Carroll PR, et al. Best practices in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Recommendations of the
We aimed to compare results between patients with early- stage prostate cancer who underwent robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy. We examined preoperative and postoperative data, early and late complications, and analysed oncological and functional outcomes (continence and erectile function) during follow-up.
We studied the data of 123 patients with localized prostate cancer, operated with nerve-sparing retropubic radical prostatectomy, divided into two groups. Group 1 included 70 patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Group 2 included 53 patients, on whom open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) was performed. We compared preoperative data, complications rate, oncological, and functional outcome (continence and erectile function) during the follow-up period.
Operative time was significantly lower in the RRP group. Blood loss and earlier removal of the urinary catheter were significantly lower in the RARP group. The percentage of significant postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo III-IV) was 0% in the first group and 3% in the second group. During follow-up, the improvement in the functional outcome - continence and erectile function was significantly better in the robot-assisted surgery patients.
There were statistically significant better functional outcomes in patients operated on using the robot-assisted technique. The operating time was shorter in the classic radical prostatectomy. The application of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy may help achieve earlier recovery, as compared to open radical prostatectomy.
; p. 1-13. German.
22. Stone P, Hardy J, Huddart R, A’Hern R, Richards M. Fatigue in patients with prostatecancer receiving hormone therapy. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36(9):1134-41.
23. Stone P, Richards M, A’Hern R, Hardy J. A study to investigate the prevalence, severity and correlates of fatigue among patients with cancer in comparison with a control group of volunteers without cancer. Ann Oncol. 2000;11(5):561-7.
24. Curt GA. The impact of fatigue on patients with cancer: Overview of Fatique 1 and 2. Oncologist 2000;5(Suppl 2):S9-12.
Ljubomir S. Kovachev, Pencho T. Tonchev and Kiril L. Nedialkov
. Internet use by patients with prostatecancer undergoing radiotherapy. Urology. 2003;62(2):273-7.
24. Satterlund MJ, McCaul KD, Sandgren AK. Information gathering over time by breast cancer patients. J Med Internet Res 2003;5(3):e15.
25. Peterson MW, Fretz PC. Patient use of the Internet for information in a lung cancer clinic. Chest. 2003;123(2):452-7.
26. Diefenbach MA, Dorsey J, Uzzo RG, Hanks GE, Greenberg RE, Horwitz E, et al al. Decision-making strategies for patients with localized prostatecancer. Semin Urol Oncol. 2002;20(1):55-62.