Literature DB >> 16846677

Complications, urinary continence, and oncologic outcome of 1000 laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomies-experience at the Charité Hospital Berlin, Campus Mitte.

Michael Lein1, Inna Stibane, Ramin Mansour, Claudia Hege, Jan Roigas, Andreas Wille, Klaus Jung, Glen Kristiansen, Dietmar Schnorr, Stefan A Loening, Serdar Deger.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomy (LRP) is an alternative to open radical prostatectomy, but data based on large populations are not frequently available. This study was initiated to evaluate LRP with regard to complications, urinary continence, and oncologic outcome.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 1000 consecutive patients with a mean age of 62 yr (SD+/-6 yr) and clinically localized prostate cancer. Between May 1999 and October 2004, all 1000 patients underwent LRP performed by eight urologists at one institution (Charité Hospital Berlin, Campus Mitte). The review procedure was based on complete patient documents (hospital stay, n=1000) and an interview by one physician. Histopathologic results, intraoperative and early and late complications, continence rate, and time to first PSA increase (n=952) were recorded. Erectile function was not part of this review. Twenty-two patients received neoadjuvant treatment for >2 mo.
RESULTS: The median follow-up was 28.8 mo (range: 7.2 to 69.7). Intraoperative and early complications occurred in 11.8% of patients. In 77.6% the urethrovesical anastomosis tested by cystography at day 5 or 6 after LRP was intact; 76% used none or not more than one pad per 24h. The overall PSA-free survival was more than 90% for pT2, 80.3% for pT3a, and 72.4% for pT3b until July 2005. The mortality rate was 0.3%.
CONCLUSIONS: In the present series of 1000 patients, a specific disadvantage of LRP compared with the open approach, as reported in the literature, could not be shown. On the basis of short-term follow-up data, our retrospective evaluation confirms that LRP provides satisfactory results. We believe that laparoscopic radical prostatectomy can be the technique of choice in the future.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16846677     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.06.023

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


  23 in total

Review 1.  Oncological and functional results of open, robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does surgical approach and surgical experience matter?

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

Review 2.  Treatment for PSA screen-detected prostate cancer: what are the options?

Authors:  R Tim D Oliver; David E Neal
Journal:  Nat Clin Pract Urol       Date:  2009-01-27

3.  Impact of positive surgical margins on oncological outcome following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP): long-term results.

Authors:  Jonas Busch; Carsten Stephan; Annett Klutzny; Stefan Hinz; Carsten Kempkensteffen; Ergin Kilic; Michael Lein; Steffen Weikert; Kurt Miller; Ahmed Magheli
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-05-11       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Impact of surgical technique (open vs laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted) on pathological and biochemical outcomes following radical prostatectomy: an analysis using propensity score matching.

Authors:  Ahmed Magheli; Mark L Gonzalgo; Li-Ming Su; Thomas J Guzzo; George Netto; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Misop Han; Alan W Partin; Christian P Pavlovich
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2010-11-02       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 5.  Prevention and management of perioperative complications in laparoscopic and endoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Evangelos Liatsikos; Robert Rabenalt; Martin Burchardt; Miguel-Ramirez Backhaus; Minh Do; Anja Dietel; Johanna Wasserscheid; Costantinos Constantinides; Panagiotis Kallidonis; Michael C Truss; Thomas R Herrmann; Roman Ganzer; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2008-09-10       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 6.  Is laparoscopy dying for radical prostatectomy?

Authors:  Xavier Cathelineau; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; Eric Barret; François Rozet; Guy Vallancien
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 7.  Nuclear sphingolipid metabolism.

Authors:  Natasha C Lucki; Marion B Sewer
Journal:  Annu Rev Physiol       Date:  2011-09-09       Impact factor: 19.318

8.  Matched comparison of outcomes following open and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy for high-risk patients.

Authors:  Jonas Busch; Ahmed Magheli; Natalia Leva; Stefan Hinz; Michelle Ferrari; Frank Friedersdorff; Tom Florian Fuller; Kurt Miller; Mark L Gonzalgo
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-03-09       Impact factor: 4.226

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

Review 10.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.

Authors:  N L Sharma; N C Shah; D E Neal
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-09-29       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.