Literature DB >> 12946751

Pathologic comparison of laparoscopic versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens.

James A Brown1, Christopher Garlitz, Leonard G Gomella, Scott G Hubosky, Stuart M Diamond, David McGinnis, Stephen E Strup.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the pathologic evaluation of 60 sequential laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) specimens with 60 sequential and 60 stage and grade-matched open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) cohort specimens.
METHODS: Of 68 patients undergoing LRP, 3 requiring open conversion and 5 receiving neoadjuvant hormonal therapy were excluded, leaving 60 for analysis. Among 72 sequential open RRP specimens, 60 from patients not receiving neoadjuvant hormonal therapy and without nodal metastases were analyzed. A third cohort of 60 RRP specimens matched with the LRP specimens for clinical stage and biopsy grade was also evaluated.
RESULTS: The specimen weight and preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen level were similar for each cohort, and approximately 75% of patients from each cohort were clinical Stage T1c. Forty-six LRP and matched open RRP (76.7%) and 39 sequential open RRP (65%) specimens were biopsy Gleason sum 6, and the remainder were primarily Gleason sum 7. The pathologic grade and stage distribution were similar for each cohort. Ten LRP (16.9%) and 12 open RRP (20%) specimens from each cohort had positive inked margins (P > 0.10). Positive apex margins were noted in 3, 7, and 7 and multiple positive margin sites in 0, 5, and 6 of the LRP, matched open RRP, and sequential open RRP specimens (P < 0.05), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Pathologic evaluation of the LRP and open RRP specimens from patients not receiving neoadjuvant hormonal therapy demonstrated similar overall positive margin rates, but LRP had a lower rate of apex and multiple-site positive margins.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12946751     DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(03)00387-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  10 in total

1.  [Decreased number of R1-resections in radical retropubic prostatectomy. Use of a newly developed fast sectioning technique].

Authors:  P M Braun; K Meyer-Schell; C Seif; S Hautmann; I Leuschner; G Klöppel; K-P Jünemann
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 2.  Critical comparison of laparoscopic, robotic, and open radical prostatectomy: techniques, outcomes, and cost.

Authors:  Matthew T Gettman; Michael L Blute
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: the University of Leipzig experience of 1,300 cases.

Authors:  Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Robert Rabenalt; Minh Do; Michael C Truss; Martin Burchardt; Thomas R Herrmann; Thilo Schwalenberg; Panagiotis Kallidonis; Evangelos N Liatsikos
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2007-03-02       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Incidence and location of positive surgical margins following open, pure laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy and its relation with neurovascular preservation: a single-institution experience.

Authors:  W Villamil; N Billordo Peres; P Martinez; C Giudice; J Liyo; P García Marchiñena; A Jurado; O Damia
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2012-02-01

5.  Surgical margins in radical prostatectomy: a comparison between retropubic and laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Elcio Silva; Ubirajara Ferreira; Gustavo D Silva; Mirandolino B Mariano; Nelson R Netto; Athanase Billis; Luis A Magna
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2007-03-15       Impact factor: 2.370

6.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological and functional results of 126 patients with a minimum 3-year follow-up at a single Chinese institute.

Authors:  Xin Gao; Jian-Hua Zhou; Liao-Yuan Li; Jian-Guang Qiu; Xiao-Yong Pu
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2009-08-03       Impact factor: 3.285

7.  Positive surgical margins during robotic radical prostatectomy: a contemporary analysis of risk factors.

Authors:  Michael Liss; Kathryn Osann; David Ornstein
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2008-04-24       Impact factor: 5.588

8.  Reduction in incidence of lymphocele following extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection by bilateral peritoneal fenestration.

Authors:  Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Johanna Wasserscheid; Robert Rabenalt; Minh Do; Thilo Schwalenberg; Alan McNeill; Costantinos Constantinides; Panagiotis Kallidonis; Roman Ganzer; Evangelos Liatsikos
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2008-09-07       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  Location of positive surgical margin and its association with biochemical recurrence rate do not differ significantly in four different types of radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Yoon Seok Suh; Hyeon Jun Jang; Wan Song; Hye Won Lee; Hye Seung Kim; Hwang Gyun Jeon; Byong Chang Jeong; Seong Il Seo; Seong Soo Jeon; Han Yong Choi; Hyun Moo Lee
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2014-11-21

10.  The Effect of Tumor-Prostate Ratio on Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Sung Yong Cho; Young Deuk Choi
Journal:  World J Mens Health       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 5.400

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.