PURPOSE: We correlated intraoperative video documentation and pathology findings to understand the mechanisms by which positive surgical margins occur and improve the surgical technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2003 and May 2004, 240 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, of whom 180 had pT2 prostate cancer and represent the population of this study. After the first 90 patients (group 1) we started a quality assurance study, analyzing intraoperative video recordings and correlating them with pathology findings in patients with a positive margin. The cancer characteristics and positive margin rate were compared between the first 90 patients and the subsequent 90 after the study was initiated (group 2). RESULTS: Of the 12 cases of positive surgical margins studied the video review helped identify 8 with a technical error. In all 4 cases in which a technical error could not be identified the positive margin site was at the distal apex. The most frequent identifiable mechanism by which positive margins occurred was a capsular tear during neurovascular bundle dissection. The 2 groups were comparable in regard to preoperative cancer characteristics and total tumor volume. In patients who underwent bilateral nerve sparing the positive margin rate was 10.6% in group 1 and 5.4% in group 2 (p = 0.18). All positive margins in group 2 involved the prostatic apex. CONCLUSIONS: Quality assurance efforts through pathological and intraoperative documentation review can help decrease the positive margin rate, particularly in organ confined disease. However, eradicating positive margins at the distal prostatic apex remains a challenge.
PURPOSE: We correlated intraoperative video documentation and pathology findings to understand the mechanisms by which positive surgical margins occur and improve the surgical technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2003 and May 2004, 240 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, of whom 180 had pT2 prostate cancer and represent the population of this study. After the first 90 patients (group 1) we started a quality assurance study, analyzing intraoperative video recordings and correlating them with pathology findings in patients with a positive margin. The cancer characteristics and positive margin rate were compared between the first 90 patients and the subsequent 90 after the study was initiated (group 2). RESULTS: Of the 12 cases of positive surgical margins studied the video review helped identify 8 with a technical error. In all 4 cases in which a technical error could not be identified the positive margin site was at the distal apex. The most frequent identifiable mechanism by which positive margins occurred was a capsular tear during neurovascular bundle dissection. The 2 groups were comparable in regard to preoperative cancer characteristics and total tumor volume. In patients who underwent bilateral nerve sparing the positive margin rate was 10.6% in group 1 and 5.4% in group 2 (p = 0.18). All positive margins in group 2 involved the prostatic apex. CONCLUSIONS: Quality assurance efforts through pathological and intraoperative documentation review can help decrease the positive margin rate, particularly in organ confined disease. However, eradicating positive margins at the distal prostatic apex remains a challenge.
Authors: Karim Touijer; Kentaro Kuroiwa; Andrew Vickers; Victor E Reuter; Hedwig Hricak; Peter T Scardino; Bertrand Guillonneau Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-01-19 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Fernando P Secin; Caroline Savage; Claude Abbou; Alexandre de La Taille; Laurent Salomon; Jens Rassweiler; Marcel Hruza; François Rozet; Xavier Cathelineau; Gunther Janetschek; Faissal Nassar; Ingolf Turk; Alex J Vanni; Inderbir S Gill; Philippe Koenig; Jihad H Kaouk; Luis Martinez Pineiro; Vito Pansadoro; Paolo Emiliozzi; Anders Bjartell; Thomas Jiborn; Christopher Eden; Andrew J Richards; Roland Van Velthoven; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Robert Rabenalt; Li-Ming Su; Christian P Pavlovich; Adam W Levinson; Karim A Touijer; Andrew Vickers; Bertrand Guillonneau Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-10-16 Impact factor: 7.450