PURPOSE: Based on the experience of 1000 cases of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, we compared the operative parameters of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches in match-paired patient groups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the charts of 53 consecutive patients who underwent selectively extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy comparing it to 53 match-paired patients treated by transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The patients were matched for age, PSA (ng/ml), prostate volume (g), pathologic stage, Gleason score, presence of pelvic lymph node dissection and type of nerve-sparing technique. Perioperative parameters (operating time, blood donation, complications) and postoperative results (duration and amount of analgesic treatment, catheterization time) as well as oncological (surgical margin status) and functional (continence rate) results were analyzed. RESULTS: Patients were 62.9 +/- 5.5 versus 62.9 +/- 5.4 years old, had 27.5 +/- 3.5 kg/m2 versus 26.7 +/- 2.8 kg/m2 body mass indices in the extraperitoneal and transperitoneal groups, respectively. Preoperative mean PSA and prostate volume were 7.4 +/- 4.6 ng/ml and 41.8 +/- 16.3 g in the extraperitoneal, 7.6 +/- 3.8 ng/ml and 42.0 +/- 14.8 g in the transperitoneal group. Pathologic stages were T2a in 12 vs. 13, T2b in 21 vs. 20, T2c in 7 vs. 8, T3a in 11 vs. 10 and T3b in 2 vs. 2 patients for both groups. Overall 211.8 vs. 197.1 minutes mean operative time (p = 0.328) and 21.9 +/- 15.4 mg vs. 26.3 +/- 15.8 mg narcotic analgesic requirements (p = 0.111) did not differ significantly in both groups. However, mean operating time was significantly longer in the extraperitoneal group when performing pelvic lymphadenectomy (244.5 vs. 209.6 minutes, p = 0.017). There was no statistical difference of complication rate (4% vs. 2%) and median catheter time (7 vs. 7 days), positive surgical margins (22.6% vs. 20.7%) and 12 months continence (86.7% vs. 84.9%). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between the extraperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches using the Heilbronn technique regarding all important parameters. In addition to the preference and experience of the individual surgeon, previous abdominal surgery, gross obesity and requirement of simultaneous inguinal hernia repair may be considered as selective indications for extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.
PURPOSE: Based on the experience of 1000 cases of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, we compared the operative parameters of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches in match-paired patient groups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the charts of 53 consecutive patients who underwent selectively extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy comparing it to 53 match-paired patients treated by transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The patients were matched for age, PSA (ng/ml), prostate volume (g), pathologic stage, Gleason score, presence of pelvic lymph node dissection and type of nerve-sparing technique. Perioperative parameters (operating time, blood donation, complications) and postoperative results (duration and amount of analgesic treatment, catheterization time) as well as oncological (surgical margin status) and functional (continence rate) results were analyzed. RESULTS:Patients were 62.9 +/- 5.5 versus 62.9 +/- 5.4 years old, had 27.5 +/- 3.5 kg/m2 versus 26.7 +/- 2.8 kg/m2 body mass indices in the extraperitoneal and transperitoneal groups, respectively. Preoperative mean PSA and prostate volume were 7.4 +/- 4.6 ng/ml and 41.8 +/- 16.3 g in the extraperitoneal, 7.6 +/- 3.8 ng/ml and 42.0 +/- 14.8 g in the transperitoneal group. Pathologic stages were T2a in 12 vs. 13, T2b in 21 vs. 20, T2c in 7 vs. 8, T3a in 11 vs. 10 and T3b in 2 vs. 2 patients for both groups. Overall 211.8 vs. 197.1 minutes mean operative time (p = 0.328) and 21.9 +/- 15.4 mg vs. 26.3 +/- 15.8 mg narcotic analgesic requirements (p = 0.111) did not differ significantly in both groups. However, mean operating time was significantly longer in the extraperitoneal group when performing pelvic lymphadenectomy (244.5 vs. 209.6 minutes, p = 0.017). There was no statistical difference of complication rate (4% vs. 2%) and median catheter time (7 vs. 7 days), positive surgical margins (22.6% vs. 20.7%) and 12 months continence (86.7% vs. 84.9%). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between the extraperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches using the Heilbronn technique regarding all important parameters. In addition to the preference and experience of the individual surgeon, previous abdominal surgery, gross obesity and requirement of simultaneous inguinal hernia repair may be considered as selective indications for extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.
Authors: Evangelos Liatsikos; Robert Rabenalt; Martin Burchardt; Miguel-Ramirez Backhaus; Minh Do; Anja Dietel; Johanna Wasserscheid; Costantinos Constantinides; Panagiotis Kallidonis; Michael C Truss; Thomas R Herrmann; Roman Ganzer; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg Journal: World J Urol Date: 2008-09-10 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Dogu Teber; Tibet Erdogru; Joanne Cresswell; Ali Serdar Gözen; Thomas Frede; Jens J Rassweiler Journal: World J Urol Date: 2008-07-02 Impact factor: 4.226
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