C M Chang1, D Moon, T R Gianduzzo, C G Eden. 1. Department of Urology, The North Hampshire Hospital, Aldermaston Road, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG24 9NA, England, UK. c.chang@doctor.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Large prostates can be challenging to remove during open or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). Our objective was to critically analyse the impact of prostate volume in LRP. METHODS: 400 cases of LRP were performed. Three hundred and fourteen patients had a small prostate (weight < 75 g) and 86 patients had a large prostate (weight > or = 75 g) on final histology. The following outcomes were assessed: operative time; estimated blood loss (EBL); transfusion rate; length of hospital stay (LOS); length of catheterisation; perioperative and postoperative complications (including incontinence and erectile dysfunction); surgical margin status; and early biochemical recurrence rates. RESULTS: Patients' age, PSA, Gleason sum and clinical stage were all similar. Larger prostates were associated with a 14 minutes longer mean operating time (p < 0.001), but fewer positive surgical margins (p = 0.01). Blood loss, blood transfusion rate, length of hospital stay, length of catheterisation and complication rate were all similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate size should not be a factor determining a patient's suitability for LRP. Further follow-up is needed to assess the effect of prostate size on long-term functional and oncological results.
OBJECTIVES: Large prostates can be challenging to remove during open or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). Our objective was to critically analyse the impact of prostate volume in LRP. METHODS: 400 cases of LRP were performed. Three hundred and fourteen patients had a small prostate (weight < 75 g) and 86 patients had a large prostate (weight > or = 75 g) on final histology. The following outcomes were assessed: operative time; estimated blood loss (EBL); transfusion rate; length of hospital stay (LOS); length of catheterisation; perioperative and postoperative complications (including incontinence and erectile dysfunction); surgical margin status; and early biochemical recurrence rates. RESULTS:Patients' age, PSA, Gleason sum and clinical stage were all similar. Larger prostates were associated with a 14 minutes longer mean operating time (p < 0.001), but fewer positive surgical margins (p = 0.01). Blood loss, blood transfusion rate, length of hospital stay, length of catheterisation and complication rate were all similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate size should not be a factor determining a patient's suitability for LRP. Further follow-up is needed to assess the effect of prostate size on long-term functional and oncological results.
Authors: Stanislav V Berelavichus; Grigory G Karmazanovsky; Vadim S Shirokov; Valeriy A Kubyshkin; Andrey G Kriger; Evgeny V Kondratyev; Olga P Zakharova Journal: World J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2012-06-27
Authors: Peiguo G Chu; Sean K Lau; Lawrence M Weiss; Mark Kawachi; Jeffrey Yoshida; Christopher Ruel; Rebecca Nelson; Laura Crocitto; Timothy Wilson Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-09-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Joseph A Pettus; Timothy Masterson; Alexander Sokol; Angel M Cronin; Caroline Savage; Jaspreet S Sandhu; John P Mulhall; Peter T Scardino; Farhang Rabbani Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Deok-Hyun Nam; Eu Chang Hwang; Chang Min Im; Sun-Ouck Kim; Seung Il Jung; Dong Deuk Kwon; Kwangsung Park; Soo Bang Ryu Journal: Korean J Urol Date: 2011-01-24
Authors: Carl A Olsson; Hugh J Lavery; Dov Sebrow; Ardavan Akhavan; Adam W Levinson; Jonathan S Brajtbord; John Carlucci; Paul Muntner; David B Samadi Journal: Arab J Urol Date: 2011-11-16