Retropubic, laparoscopic and mini‑laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of patient scar satisfaction

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Quattrone, C
Data de Publicação: 2014
Outros Autores: Cicione, A, Oliveira, C, Autorino, R, Cantiello, F, Mirone, V, De Sio, M, Carrubbo, L, Damiano, R, Pavone, C, Lima, E
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.23/848
Resumo: PURPOSE: To compare patient scar satisfaction after retropubic, standard laparoscopic, mini-laparoscopic (ML) and open radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS: Patients undergoing RP for a diagnosis of localized prostate cancer at a single academic hospital between September 2012 and December 2013 were enrolled in this prospective nonrandomized study. The patients were included in three study arms: open surgery, VLP and ML. A skin stapler was used for surgical wound closure in all cases. Demographic and main surgical outcomes, including perioperative complications, were analyzed. Surgical scar satisfaction was measured using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Questionnaire (POSAS) and the two Body Image Questionnaire (BIQ) scales, respectively, recorded at skin clips removal and either at 6 months after surgery. RESULTS: Overall, 32 patients were enrolled and completed the 6 month of follow-up. At clips removal, laparoscopic approaches offered better scar result than open surgery according to the POSAS. However, at 6 months, no differences were detected between VLP and open, whereas ML was still associated with a better scar outcome (p = 0.001). This finding was also confirmed by both BIQ scales, including the body image score (ML 9.8 ± 1.69, open 15.73 ± 3.47, VLP 13.27 ± 3.64; p = 0.001) and the cosmetic score (ML 16.6 ± 4.12, open 10 ± 1.9, LP 12.91 ± 3.59; p = 0.001). Small sample size and lack of randomization represent the main limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: ML RP offers a better cosmetic outcome when compared to both open and standard laparoscopic RP, representing a step toward minimal surgical scar. The impact of scar outcome on RP patients' quality of life remains to be determined.
id RCAP_e6ebf6a1fde86205660c58a80fb9191d
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.hospitaldebraga.pt:10400.23/848
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Retropubic, laparoscopic and mini‑laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of patient scar satisfactionLaparoscopiaProcedimentos Cirúrgicos UrológicosProstatectomiaPURPOSE: To compare patient scar satisfaction after retropubic, standard laparoscopic, mini-laparoscopic (ML) and open radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS: Patients undergoing RP for a diagnosis of localized prostate cancer at a single academic hospital between September 2012 and December 2013 were enrolled in this prospective nonrandomized study. The patients were included in three study arms: open surgery, VLP and ML. A skin stapler was used for surgical wound closure in all cases. Demographic and main surgical outcomes, including perioperative complications, were analyzed. Surgical scar satisfaction was measured using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Questionnaire (POSAS) and the two Body Image Questionnaire (BIQ) scales, respectively, recorded at skin clips removal and either at 6 months after surgery. RESULTS: Overall, 32 patients were enrolled and completed the 6 month of follow-up. At clips removal, laparoscopic approaches offered better scar result than open surgery according to the POSAS. However, at 6 months, no differences were detected between VLP and open, whereas ML was still associated with a better scar outcome (p = 0.001). This finding was also confirmed by both BIQ scales, including the body image score (ML 9.8 ± 1.69, open 15.73 ± 3.47, VLP 13.27 ± 3.64; p = 0.001) and the cosmetic score (ML 16.6 ± 4.12, open 10 ± 1.9, LP 12.91 ± 3.59; p = 0.001). Small sample size and lack of randomization represent the main limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: ML RP offers a better cosmetic outcome when compared to both open and standard laparoscopic RP, representing a step toward minimal surgical scar. The impact of scar outcome on RP patients' quality of life remains to be determined.Repositório Científico do Hospital de BragaQuattrone, CCicione, AOliveira, CAutorino, RCantiello, FMirone, VDe Sio, MCarrubbo, LDamiano, RPavone, CLima, E2015-03-27T12:31:51Z2014-01-01T00:00:00Z2014-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.23/848engWorld J Urol. 2014 Oct 26. [Epub ahead of print]info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2022-09-21T09:02:36Zoai:repositorio.hospitaldebraga.pt:10400.23/848Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T15:55:28.407055Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Retropubic, laparoscopic and mini‑laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of patient scar satisfaction
title Retropubic, laparoscopic and mini‑laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of patient scar satisfaction
spellingShingle Retropubic, laparoscopic and mini‑laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of patient scar satisfaction
Quattrone, C
Laparoscopia
Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Urológicos
Prostatectomia
title_short Retropubic, laparoscopic and mini‑laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of patient scar satisfaction
title_full Retropubic, laparoscopic and mini‑laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of patient scar satisfaction
title_fullStr Retropubic, laparoscopic and mini‑laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of patient scar satisfaction
title_full_unstemmed Retropubic, laparoscopic and mini‑laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of patient scar satisfaction
title_sort Retropubic, laparoscopic and mini‑laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of patient scar satisfaction
author Quattrone, C
author_facet Quattrone, C
Cicione, A
Oliveira, C
Autorino, R
Cantiello, F
Mirone, V
De Sio, M
Carrubbo, L
Damiano, R
Pavone, C
Lima, E
author_role author
author2 Cicione, A
Oliveira, C
Autorino, R
Cantiello, F
Mirone, V
De Sio, M
Carrubbo, L
Damiano, R
Pavone, C
Lima, E
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico do Hospital de Braga
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Quattrone, C
Cicione, A
Oliveira, C
Autorino, R
Cantiello, F
Mirone, V
De Sio, M
Carrubbo, L
Damiano, R
Pavone, C
Lima, E
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Laparoscopia
Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Urológicos
Prostatectomia
topic Laparoscopia
Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Urológicos
Prostatectomia
description PURPOSE: To compare patient scar satisfaction after retropubic, standard laparoscopic, mini-laparoscopic (ML) and open radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS: Patients undergoing RP for a diagnosis of localized prostate cancer at a single academic hospital between September 2012 and December 2013 were enrolled in this prospective nonrandomized study. The patients were included in three study arms: open surgery, VLP and ML. A skin stapler was used for surgical wound closure in all cases. Demographic and main surgical outcomes, including perioperative complications, were analyzed. Surgical scar satisfaction was measured using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Questionnaire (POSAS) and the two Body Image Questionnaire (BIQ) scales, respectively, recorded at skin clips removal and either at 6 months after surgery. RESULTS: Overall, 32 patients were enrolled and completed the 6 month of follow-up. At clips removal, laparoscopic approaches offered better scar result than open surgery according to the POSAS. However, at 6 months, no differences were detected between VLP and open, whereas ML was still associated with a better scar outcome (p = 0.001). This finding was also confirmed by both BIQ scales, including the body image score (ML 9.8 ± 1.69, open 15.73 ± 3.47, VLP 13.27 ± 3.64; p = 0.001) and the cosmetic score (ML 16.6 ± 4.12, open 10 ± 1.9, LP 12.91 ± 3.59; p = 0.001). Small sample size and lack of randomization represent the main limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: ML RP offers a better cosmetic outcome when compared to both open and standard laparoscopic RP, representing a step toward minimal surgical scar. The impact of scar outcome on RP patients' quality of life remains to be determined.
publishDate 2014
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2014-01-01T00:00:00Z
2014-01-01T00:00:00Z
2015-03-27T12:31:51Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10400.23/848
url http://hdl.handle.net/10400.23/848
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv World J Urol. 2014 Oct 26. [Epub ahead of print]
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799130423139237888