OBJECTIVE: Outcome after radical prostatectomy is highly sensitive to fine nuances in the surgical techniques. We sought to determine the impact of a process of continuous control and monitoring on the positive surgical margin rate in a contemporary series of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Between January 2003 and October 2004, 301 men underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer (cT1-cT3a). A weekly case review conference involving surgeons, radiologists, and uropathologists was held to discuss the preoperative, intraoperative, and pathologic findings of significant cases. We analyzed the trend of positive surgical margins and compared the clinical and detailed pathologic characteristics of the cancer during the study period. RESULTS: We created logistic regression models with positive margin as the dependent variable and surgical experience as the predictor, adjusting for possible secular changes in disease severity (prostate-specific antigen, pathologic stage, and Gleason grade). There was a decrease in the rate of surgical margins: odds ratio 0.68/100 patients treated (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44, 1.05; p=0.08). The predicted probability for a positive surgical margin falls from 17.3% for the first patient to 7.5% for the 301st. These values are close to the observed rates for the first and last 50 patients. There was no important change in surgical risk over the course of the study, and the rate of nerve sparing remained stable throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary series, which is unaffected by downward stage migration, the decreasing rate of positive surgical margins can be explained by subtle surgical technique modifications and a continuous multidepartmental effort for quality improvement.
OBJECTIVE: Outcome after radical prostatectomy is highly sensitive to fine nuances in the surgical techniques. We sought to determine the impact of a process of continuous control and monitoring on the positive surgical margin rate in a contemporary series of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Between January 2003 and October 2004, 301 men underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer (cT1-cT3a). A weekly case review conference involving surgeons, radiologists, and uropathologists was held to discuss the preoperative, intraoperative, and pathologic findings of significant cases. We analyzed the trend of positive surgical margins and compared the clinical and detailed pathologic characteristics of the cancer during the study period. RESULTS: We created logistic regression models with positive margin as the dependent variable and surgical experience as the predictor, adjusting for possible secular changes in disease severity (prostate-specific antigen, pathologic stage, and Gleason grade). There was a decrease in the rate of surgical margins: odds ratio 0.68/100 patients treated (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44, 1.05; p=0.08). The predicted probability for a positive surgical margin falls from 17.3% for the first patientto 7.5% for the 301st. These values are close to the observed rates for the first and last 50 patients. There was no important change in surgical risk over the course of the study, and the rate of nerve sparing remained stable throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary series, which is unaffected by downward stage migration, the decreasing rate of positive surgical margins can be explained by subtle surgical technique modifications and a continuous multidepartmental effort for quality improvement.
Authors: B Guillonneau; H el-Fettouh; H Baumert; X Cathelineau; J D Doublet; G Fromont; G Vallancien Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Colin B Begg; Elyn R Riedel; Peter B Bach; Michael W Kattan; Deborah Schrag; Joan L Warren; Peter T Scardino Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ran Katz; Laurent Salomon; Andras Hoznek; Alexandre de la Taille; Patrick Antiphon; Clement Claude Abbou Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: James A Eastham; Michael W Kattan; Elyn Riedel; Colin B Begg; Thomas M Wheeler; Claudia Gerigk; Mithat Gonen; Victor Reuter; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ithaar H Derweesh; Patrick A Kupelian; Craig Zippe; Howard S Levin; Jennifer Brainard; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Jonathan Myles; Alwyn M Reuther; Eric A Klein Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2004 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Michael W Kattan; James A Eastham; Thomas M Wheeler; Norio Maru; Peter T Scardino; Andreas Erbersdobler; Markus Graefen; Hartwig Huland; Hideshige Koh; Shahrokh F Shariat; Kevin M Slawin; Makoto Ohori Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: T R Herrmann; R Rabenalt; J U Stolzenburg; E N Liatsikos; F Imkamp; H Tezval; A J Gross; U Jonas; M Burchardt Journal: World J Urol Date: 2007-03-13 Impact factor: 4.226
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