Literature DB >> 16442596

Changes in quality of life in first year after radical prostatectomy by retropubic, laparoscopic, and perineal approach: Multi-institutional longitudinal study in Japan.

Shunichi Namiki1, Shin Egawa, Toshiro Terachi, Akio Matsubara, Mikio Igawa, Akito Terai, Tatsuo Tochigi, Naomasa Ioritani, Seiichi Saito, Yoichi Arai.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the health-related quality of life of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy performed using retropubic, laparoscopic, and perineal approaches.
METHODS: A total of 218 men who underwent retropubic prostatectomy, 65 who underwent laparoscopic prostatectomy, and 66 who underwent perineal prostatectomy were enrolled in our survey. A baseline interview was conducted before treatment. Follow-up interviews were conducted in person at scheduled study visits 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. We measured two validated questionnaires that assessed the general and disease-specific health-related quality of life.
RESULTS: The retropubic group reported substantial deterioration in physical limitations, emotional limitations, social function, and bodily pain at 1 month. The perineal group reported less bodily pain just after surgery than the retropubic and laparoscopic groups. After 6 months, however, no significant differences were found among the three groups. Postoperative urinary function remained substantially lower than the baseline level in every treatment group. Each approach with a nerve-sparing procedure showed a similar recovery profile of urinary function postoperatively. The perineal group reported no significant difference in bowel function compared with the other two groups. All of the groups continued to have decrements in sexual function.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study have demonstrated that retropubic, laparoscopic, and perineal prostatectomy have differences in the recovery of general and disease-specific quality of life in the early postoperative period. When performed by an experienced surgeon, the retropubic, laparoscopic, and perineal approaches appear to be equivalent in terms of health-related quality of life.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16442596     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.09.004

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


  6 in total

Review 1.  Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The case for open radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Nadeem Shaida; Peter R Malone
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 1.891

2.  New techniques and management options for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Joycelyn L Speight; Mack Roach
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2006

3.  Prospective comparison of scar-related satisfaction and quality of life after laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: no differences from patients' point of view.

Authors:  Nicolas Barry Delongchamps; Olivier Belas; Djillali Saighi; Marc Zerbib; Michaël Peyromaure
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-04-06       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Research Article Quality of life after laparoscopic hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy.

Authors:  Yasushi Kotani; Kosuke Murakami; Risa Fujishima; Akiko Kanto; Hisamitsu Takaya; Masao Shimaoka; Hidekatsu Nakai; Noriomi Matsumura
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2021-05-22       Impact factor: 2.809

5.  Prospective longitudinal outcomes of quality of life after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared with retropubic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Katsuyoshi Hashine; Toshio Kakuda; Shunsuke Iuchi; Tadanori Hosokawa; Iku Ninomiya
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2018-01-05       Impact factor: 3.186

Review 6.  Current status of robotic surgery in Japan.

Authors:  Kazuo Nishimura
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2015-03-03
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.