Literature DB >> 16563608

Intra- and peri-operative outcomes comparing radical retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: results from a prospective, randomised, single-surgeon study.

Giorgio Guazzoni1, Andrea Cestari, Richard Naspro, Matteo Riva, Antonia Centemero, Matteo Zanoni, Lorenzo Rigatti, Patrizio Rigatti.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To prospectively compare intra- and peri-operative outcomes of open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) and laparoscopic prostatectomy (LRP) by a single surgeon. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One-hundred-twenty, consecutive, age-matched patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer were eligible for surgery. Sixty patients underwent RRP and 60, LRP. Intra- and peri-operative parameters, pathologic findings and early complications were recorded. A validated visual analogue scale was used to assess pain in the recovery room, 3 h after the operation and on post-operative days 1, 2 and 3. A cystogram was performed on post-operative day 5.
RESULTS: Operating time was significantly shorter in the RRP group versus the LRP group (mean+/-SD, 170+/-34. 2 vs 235+/-49.9 min, p<0.001). Blood loss was significantly less in the LRP group versus the RRP group (mean+/-SD, 853.3+/-485 vs 257.3+/-177 ml, p<0.001), but no patient in either group underwent early re-intervention for bleeding. The RRP group showed a trend for higher use of analgesia. A watertight anastomosis was shown at cystourethrography and the catheter removed in 86% and 66% of LRP and RRP patients, respectively. The overall percentage of post-operative complications and positive margins were comparable.
CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic prostatectomy is an attractive alternative to open prostatectomy, offering the advantages of reduced blood loss and safe early catheter removal. Furthermore, the laparoscopic procedure proved to be safe oncologically. Long-term follow-up is required to compare functional results in terms of continence and potency.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16563608     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.02.051

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  26 in total

Review 1.  [Laparoscopic pelvic surgery: Where do we stand in the year 2006?].

Authors:  J Rassweiler; D Teber; J de la Rosette; P Laguna; V Pansodoro; T Frede
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 2.  Novel techniques for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: evidence of efficacy?

Authors:  Marnie R Robinson; Judd W Moul
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  [Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy].

Authors:  J Rotering; S Siemer; M Stöckle
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  Comparison of mid-term carcinologic control obtained after open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Sarah J Drouin; Christophe Vaessen; Vincent Hupertan; Eva Comperat; Vincent Misraï; Alain Haertig; Marc-Olivier Bitker; Emmanuel Chartier-Kastler; François Richard; Morgan Rouprêt
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2009-05-07       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  The end of robot-assisted laparoscopy? A critical appraisal of scientific evidence on the use of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Jeroen Heemskerk; Nicole D Bouvy; Cor G M I Baeten
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 6.  Surgical Management of Organ-Confined Prostate Cancer with Review of Literature and Evolving Evidence.

Authors:  Ahmed Saeed Goolam; Alfredo Harb-De la Rosa; Murugesan Manoharan
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-01-13

Review 7.  Outcomes assessment in men undergoing open retropubic radical prostatectomy, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Keith J Kowalczyk; Hua-Yin Yu; William Ulmer; Stephen B Williams; Jim C Hu
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-03-02       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 8.  [Minimally invasive versus open prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer].

Authors:  A Spek
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 9.  Comparison of retropubic, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: who is the winner?

Authors:  Abbas Basiri; Jean Jmch de la Rosette; Shahin Tabatabaei; Henry H Woo; M Pilar Laguna; Hamidreza Shemshaki
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-01-23       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer surgical treatments: a population based analysis of postoperative outcomes.

Authors:  William T Lowrance; Elena B Elkin; Lindsay M Jacks; David S Yee; Thomas L Jang; Vincent P Laudone; Bertrand D Guillonneau; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-02-25       Impact factor: 7.450

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.