Project description:Background: Radical prostatectomy can be challenging in patients with a very large prostate. The extraperitoneal (EP) approach to a robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is often considered more difficult than the transperitoneal approach due to the limited working space. The aim of the study is to evaluate if EP-RARP overcomes the obstacles posed by very large prostates. Methods: In this institutional review board-approved study, we queried our prospectively collected database (CAISIS) of patients who underwent EP-RARP. 1663 patients underwent EP-RARP for localized prostate cancer by a single surgeon (Jul. 2003–Dec. 2013). 55 patients with prostate pathology specimen weight >100g (group 1) were matched to an equally-sized cohort with prostate weight of <100 g (group 2). A propensity-score match using multivariate analysis was performed incorporating 10 co-variates. Data on standard pre, peri, and postoperative variables was analyzed, as well as complications classified according to the modified Clavien-Dindo classification were noted. Results: The mean PSA (9.1 ± 5.4 vs. 6.9 ± 5, p=0.03) was higher in group 1. All other patient and disease variables [Age (65.2 ± 5.6 vs. 63.3 ± 6, p=0.08), BMI (28.8 ± 3.4 vs. 29.3 ± 5, p=0.57), ASA 1/2/3 (7.2/72.7/20 vs. 10.9/69/20, p=0.8), clinical T-stage 1/2 (89/11 vs. 89/11, p=0.78), and biopsy Gleason score sum 7 (71/29 vs. 71/29, p=1) were similar in group 1 and 2 respectively. The mean prostate weight in group 1 was 120 g, while it was 58.6 g in group 2 (p<0.0001). There was no difference in the ability to perform partial or full nerve-sparing (70 vs 78 %, p=0.19) or pelvic lymphadenectomy (34.5 vs. 38.1 %, p=0.69). Post-operative pathological parameters such as Gleason score sum 7 (70.5/29.5 vs. 56.3/43.7, p=0.13), T-stage 2/3a/3b (89/7.2/1.8 vs. 87.2/10.9/1.8, p= 0.86) and positive surgical margin rates (7.2 vs. 9 %, p=1) were similar. Higher mean OR time (205.8 ± 48.6 vs 180.2 ± 43.4 mins, p=0.004) and estimated blood loss (318.4 ± 172.8 and 200.3 ± 143.5ccs, p=0.0002) were noted in group 1 compared to group 2 respectively. There were no differences in transfusion rates (1 patient transfused in group 2), rates of patients discharged on day 1 (89 vs. 94%, p=0.27), or the complications [Clavien 1–2/3–4 (11/2 vs 8/0, p=0.41)] between the two groups. Conclusions: Apart from increased operative times and blood loss, no differences in peri and postoperative parameters, and complications were found between patients with prostates > than 100 g compared to those with < 100 g undergoing EP-RARP.
Project description:Deciphering AUA codons is a difficult task for organisms, because AUA and AUG specify isoleucine (Ile) and methionine (Met), separately. Each of the other purine-ending sense co-don sets (NNR) specifies a single amino acid in the universal genetic code. In bacteria and archaea, the cytidine derivatives, 2-lysylcytidine (L or lysidine) and 2-agmatinylcytidine (agm(2)C or agmatidine), respectively, are found at the first letter of the anticodon of tRNA(Ile) responsible for AUA codons. These modifications prevent base pairing with G of the third letter of AUG codon, and enable tRNA(Ile) to decipher AUA codon specifically. In addition, these modifications confer a charging ability of tRNA(Ile) with Ile. Despite their similar chemical structures, L and agm(2)C are synthesized by distinctive mechanisms and catalyzed by different classes of enzymes, implying that the analogous decoding systems for AUA codons were established by convergent evolution after the phylogenic split between bacteria and archaea-eukaryotes lineages following divergence from the last universal common ancestor (LUCA).