Репозиторий Университета

© 2019 Elsevier Inc. Aim: To evaluate the association between testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) in prostate cancer (CaP) patients who underwent definitive local therapy with curative intent with biochemical recurrence (BCR). Materials and methods: A literature search using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was conducted on November 2018 to identify relevant studies according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta Analysis guidelines. The pooled BCR rate in CaP men treated with TRT after definitive local therapy with curative intent was calculated using a random effects model. Results: Twenty-one studies were eligible. The overall pooled BCR rate was 0.01 (95%CI 0.00–0.02) suggesting a lack of association between TRT and BCR; there was no heterogeneity among included studies (I2 = 24.34%, P = 0.15). In subgroup analyses, pooled BCR rates were 0.00 (95%CI 0.00–0.02) in patients treated with radical prostatectomy and 0.02 (95%CI 0.00–0.04) in patients treated with external beam radiation therapy, brachytherapy, cryotherapy, or high intensity focused ultrasound; there was no heterogeneity in the subgroup analyses (I2 = 19.88%, P = 0.18). Conclusions: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we did not observe higher rate of BCR after TRT for nonmetastatic CaP patients after definitive local therapy. Based on these data, others and we have outlined a phase I/II trial assessing the safety and benefits of TRT in select men with secondary symptomatic hypogonadism who have no active disease after definitive local CaP therapy with curative intent.

© 2018 by Turkish Association of Urology. Objective: Surgical site infection (SSI) is defined as infection at or near surgical incisions within 30 days of an operative procedure and classified either incisional superficial and deep or organ/space. The aim of the study is to report and compare the incidence and management of SSIs after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) and retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP). Material and methods: Within the last 4 years, we identified 285 patients that underwent RRP, n=187 (66%) or RALP, n=98 (34%). We reviewed the frequency, types and way of management of SSI complications. Results: A significant difference was found between RALP and RRP (2/98, 2% vs. 27/187, 14.4%; p<0.0001) as for SSIs. The time interval between the time of surgery and diagnosis of SSIs was longer in RALP relative to RRP (median 13.5 vs. 12.9 days, p=0.761). Conclusion: All types of SSIs could be developed after RP, however RALP patients only experienced organ or space SSIs and have a lower rate of SSIs and shorter treatment time.

AIM: To evaluate early prostate cancer cryoablation functional and oncological results in comparison with results of extraperitoneoscopic radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed early results of surgical treatment of 285 patients with prostate cancer: 42 of them had undergone total cryoablation (Group 1) while the rest of them had been treated by radical laparo- and extraperitoneoscopic prostatectomy. For comparative assessment of prostate cryoablation results, 42 patients from Group 2 randomized in accordance with their age, stage of disease, Gleason, prostate-specific antigen, and prostate volume were selected. In compliance with the results of pre-surgical examination, all the patients had low oncological risk and were not concerned in sexual function. Volume of prostate was from 22 to 65 cm3, prostate-specific antigen level was from 4.1 to 10 ng/mL, and level of neoplastic process differentiation using Gleason grading system was from 6 to 7a (3 + 4) scores. RESULTS: Patients after prostate cryoablation in early post-surgical period felt lower intensity of postoperative pain compared with those who had undergone prostatectomy. Follow-up period up to 12 months manifested significant true reduction of prostate-specific antigen level in both groups of patients. Frequency of stress-induced enuresis in Group 1 was not observed. CONCLUSION: Radical prostatectomy is still the traditional treatment of choice in the case of localized prostate cancer. But we can draw the conclusion that cryoablation is an effective low-invasive method for treatment of low oncological risk patients, which gives the opportunity both to achieve good oncological results and to preserve high life quality.

© 2018 ABC-press Publishing House. All rights reserved. Background. Pelvic floor muscle exercises are used as a first-line treatment for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy. Their efficacy is still being investigated. The use of biofeedback when teaching pelvic floor muscle exercises to patients increases the effectiveness of therapy. Objective: to assess the efficacy of biofeedback-assisted pelvic floor muscle training in patients with urinary incontinence after laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and to compare the results of teaching. Materials and methods. A total of 64 patients with urinary incontinence after nerve sparing prostatectomy underwent biofeedback-assisted pelvic floor muscle rehabilitation. Radical laparoscopic surgery was performed in 48 (75 %) patients, whereas robot-assisted surgery was performed in 16 (25 %) patients. The patients started their training 2 months postoperatively. We used two-channel electromyography with the Neurotrack ETS system (United Kingdom) to teach the patients isolated pelvic floor muscle contractions. After achieving a minimum activity of abdominal muscles during pelvic floor muscle contractions, the patients started exercises. Results. There was no significant difference in age between patients who underwent laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (р = 0.79). Fifty-five patients (85.9%) acquired the skill of isolated pelvic floor muscle contractions and could perform training on their own. The remaining 9 patients (14.1 %) required regular support from healthcare professionals at an outpatient unit (1-2 biofeedback-assisted trainings per month). Thus, the type of surgery did not affect the process of training. The type of radical prostatectomy had no impact on the acquisition of the pelvic floor muscle contraction skill. Conclusion. The time for restoration of urinary continence by biofeedback-assisted pelvic floor muscle training did not vary between patients after laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

© 2018, Polish Urological Association. All rights reserved. Introduction Oncological remission along with high postoperative functionality [continence and erectile function (EF)] are the main aspects of prostate cancer (PCa) treatment. The aim of this study was to compare functional and oncological treatment results achieved after a nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (RP) via transperitoneal (TPRP), extraperitoneal (EPRP) and robot-assisted (RARP) approach. Material and methods From March 2015 to March 2016, 507 RP were performed at the Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health (Moscow, Russia). A total of 264 patients with localized (cТ1а–2с) prostate cancer [prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <20 ng/ml, Gleason score ≤7], intact prostate capsule (according to MRI), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) ≥19 and a life expectancy >10 years were included into the retrospective study. All the surgeries were performed by a single surgeon. The outcomes were evaluated after urethral catheter removal and 3–6–12 months after RP. Results Nerve preservation (NP) was performed for 153 patients without significant distinctions in time (р = 0.064) and blood loss (р = 0.073). The International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form (ICIQ-SF) score was lower for NP: 9.23 ±6.59 and 3.86 ±5.38 after 3 and 12 months respectively compared with continence after RP without nerve preservation (NP): 14.27 ±5.1 vs. 6.15 ±4.76 (р <0.001). Continent was 52.2% vs. 83.3% vs. 81.8% in TPRP, RARP and EPRP groups; р <0.001. IIEF-5 scores were 14.67 ±9.4, 4.2 ±4.26 and 4.0 ±2.07 after RARP, TPRP and EPRP respectively (р = 0.002). After 12 months the PSA: TPRP = 0.11 ±0.19, RARP = 0.03 ±0.05 and EPRP = 0.53 ±1.87 ng/ml (р <0.001). Outcomes depend on surgical approach and was better in the RARP-group (AUC = 0.768 ±0.034 (CI 95% 0,701–0.834; р <0.001). Conclusions We suggest RARP with NP as a method of choice for treatment of prostate cancer in patients interested in preservation of EF and quality of life in general.