Daniel M Janoff1, Raul O Parra. 1. Divisions of Urology, Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In the age of minimally invasive surgery there has been renewed interest in the perineal approach for the surgical treatment of prostate cancer. We reviewed recent publications regarding radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) in an effort to define its role in the current management of localized prostate malignancy. At the same time we reviewed the relevant perineal anatomy and surgical approach necessary to perform this operation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a review of the literature with respect to RPP and included our own extensive experience with this operation, emphasizing patient selection, the current role of pelvic lymph node dissection, surgical anatomy, oncological outcomes and complications. RESULTS: RPP is an effective treatment for localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate with oncological outcomes similar to those of the retropubic technique. In comparison to RRP, patients undergoing RPP have less postoperative discomfort, more rapid return of bowel function, more rapid return to work and a decreased transfusion rate. In addition, RRP is now often performed with cavernous nerve sparing. Prostate specific antigen screening has made the rate of lymph node metastasis low enough to omit lymphadenectomy in many cases. CONCLUSIONS: There is still a role for RPP in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Erectile dysfunction after nerve sparing and incontinence rates are similar to those of RRP. In addition, it is less morbid then RRP without being as technically challenging as laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.
PURPOSE: In the age of minimally invasive surgery there has been renewed interest in the perineal approach for the surgical treatment of prostate cancer. We reviewed recent publications regarding radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) in an effort to define its role in the current management of localized prostate malignancy. At the same time we reviewed the relevant perineal anatomy and surgical approach necessary to perform this operation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a review of the literature with respect to RPP and included our own extensive experience with this operation, emphasizing patient selection, the current role of pelvic lymph node dissection, surgical anatomy, oncological outcomes and complications. RESULTS: RPP is an effective treatment for localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate with oncological outcomes similar to those of the retropubic technique. In comparison to RRP, patients undergoing RPP have less postoperative discomfort, more rapid return of bowel function, more rapid return to work and a decreased transfusion rate. In addition, RRP is now often performed with cavernous nerve sparing. Prostate specific antigen screening has made the rate of lymph node metastasis low enough to omit lymphadenectomy in many cases. CONCLUSIONS: There is still a role for RPP in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Erectile dysfunction after nerve sparing and incontinence rates are similar to those of RRP. In addition, it is less morbid then RRP without being as technically challenging as laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.
Authors: Eric E Coronato; Justin D Harmon; Phillip C Ginsberg; Richard C Harkaway; Kulwant Singh; Leonard Braitman; Bruce B Sloane; Jamison S Jaffe Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2009-10-01