Literature DB >> 12627213

Outcome and complications of radical prostatectomy in patients with PSA <10 ng/ml: comparison between the retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic approach.

L Salomon1, O Levrel, A G Anastasiadis, F Saint, A de La Taille, A Cicco, D Vordos, A Hoznek, D Chopin, C-C Abbou.   

Abstract

The objective of this work was to evaluate the oncological outcomes and complications of prostate cancer patients with prostate specific antigen (PSA)<10 ng/ml after radical prostatectomy by retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic approach. From 1988 to 2001, 306 patients with PSA<10 ng/ml underwent radical prostatectomy by the retropubic, perineal or laparoscopic approach. Mean operative time, complication rates, length of hospital stay, catheterization time and pathological results were reviewed. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to evaluate the likelihood of biochemical PSA recurrence. There were no statistical differences between the three groups in terms of preoperative characteristics except for PSA levels (5.5, 6.5 and 6.6 ng/ml for the retropubic, perineal, and laparoscopic approach, respectively, P<0.05) and for the T1c stage prevalence (50%, 43.1% and 68.4%, P<0.05). Operating time was significatively longer in the laparoscopic approach (266 min), whereas transfusion rate (22.1%), bladder catetherization (12.1 days), and length of hospital stay (12.1 days) were higher in the retropubic group (P<0.05). The percentage of medical and surgical complications were 6.9%, 3.1% and 3.4% (P<0.05) and 18.6%, 16.9% and 11.6% (P<0.05) for the retropubic, perineal, and laparoscopic approach, respectively. Pathological staging revealed pT2 in 76.7%, 78.4% and 81.3% for retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic approach, respectively (P<0.05). Positive surgical positive margins were noted in 20.9%, 18.4% and 20.6% (P>0.05). The actuarial 3-year recurrence-free survival rate was 89.3%, 89.2% and 86.2% (P>0.05) for retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic approach, respectively. It can be concluded that in patients with preoperative PSA<10 ng/ml, clinical outcome and complication rates were similar, regardless of the choice of surgical approach.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12627213     DOI: 10.1038/sj.pcan.4500605

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis        ISSN: 1365-7852            Impact factor:   5.554


  12 in total

Review 1.  [Functional results of various surgical techniques for radical prostatectomy].

Authors:  U Michl; M Graefen; J Noldus; T Eggert; H Huland
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 2.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: review and assessment of an emerging technique.

Authors:  J B Basillote; T E Ahlering; D W Skarecky; D I Lee; R V Clayman
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-10-26       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  MR-guided prostate interventions.

Authors:  Clare Tempany; Sarah Straus; Nobuhiko Hata; Steven Haker
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 4.813

4.  Rectal tube or no rectal tube? A viewpoint from Duke University Medical Center.

Authors:  Sean A Pierre; David M Albala
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2008-05-06

5.  Radical perineal prostatectomy: a more optimal treatment approach than laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in obese patients?

Authors:  Albert C Leung; Arnold Melman
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2005

Review 6.  Prevention and management of ureteral injuries occurring during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Heilbronn experience and a review of the literature.

Authors:  Dogu Teber; Ali Serdar Gözen; Joanne Cresswell; Abdullah Erdem Canda; Faruk Yencilek; Jens Rassweiler
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2009-06-10       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Comprehensive prospective comparative analysis of outcomes between open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy conducted in 2003 to 2005.

Authors:  Karim Touijer; James A Eastham; Fernando P Secin; Javier Romero Otero; Angel Serio; Jason Stasi; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; Andrew Vickers; Victor E Reuter; Peter T Scardino; Bertrand Guillonneau
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-03-18       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Radical perineal prostatectomy: Our initial experience.

Authors:  Mustafa Güneş; Mehmet Akyüz; Fatih Uruç; Bekir Aras; Muammer Altok; Mehmet Umul
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2014-06

Review 9.  Management of complications of prostate cancer treatment.

Authors:  M Dror Michaelson; Shane E Cotter; Patricio C Gargollo; Anthony L Zietman; Douglas M Dahl; Matthew R Smith
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2008-05-23       Impact factor: 508.702

10.  Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: first experience of 15 cases.

Authors:  Volkan Tuğcu; Oktay Akça; Abdulmuttalip Şimşek; İsmail Yiğitbaşı; Selçuk Şahin; Ali İhsan Taşçı
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2017-12-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.