OBJECTIVES: To analyze the safety and efficacy of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (eL-RPE) in elderly versus younger men with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: Patients undergoing eL-RPE were retrospectively subdivided into group eL-RPE1 (72 men aged 71 yr and older) and group eL-RPE2 (132 men aged 59 yr and younger). Group eL-RPE1 was compared with a group of 70 contemporary, comparable patients aged 71 yr and older undergoing open retropubic radical prostatectomy (group OPEN-RPE). RESULTS: Compared with group eL-RPE2, patients of group eL-RPE1 had a higher pathologic stage (45% vs. 32% stage pT3 or greater, p<0.001) and higher Gleason score (median 7 vs. 6, p<0.001). Prostate-specific antigen recurrence was significantly worse compared with age-matched controls for younger patients with high-stage or high-grade lesions (p<0.001). Importantly operative time, analgesic requirements, hospital stay, convalescence, and complication rates were comparable. Urinary continence rate was significantly better in group eL-RPE2 at 6 mo (67% vs. 91%, respectively, p<0.001). Group eL-RPE1 and group OPEN-RPE patients had statistically similar pathologic stage and Gleason score (each p>0.05), similar operative time (p=0.12), but less blood loss (p<0.001), shorter hospital stay (p<0.001), and more rapid convalescence (p<0.001) occurred in eL-RPE1. CONCLUSIONS: eL-RPE is feasible and efficacious even in elderly patients with unfavorable, large-volume disease. eL-RPE offers the advantages of decreased blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and more rapid recovery over OPEN-RPE. However, the elderly patient must be informed preoperatively about the observed higher incontinence rate.
OBJECTIVES: To analyze the safety and efficacy of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (eL-RPE) in elderly versus younger men with localized prostate cancer. METHODS:Patients undergoing eL-RPE were retrospectively subdivided into group eL-RPE1 (72 men aged 71 yr and older) and group eL-RPE2 (132 men aged 59 yr and younger). Group eL-RPE1 was compared with a group of 70 contemporary, comparable patients aged 71 yr and older undergoing open retropubic radical prostatectomy (group OPEN-RPE). RESULTS: Compared with group eL-RPE2, patients of group eL-RPE1 had a higher pathologic stage (45% vs. 32% stage pT3 or greater, p<0.001) and higher Gleason score (median 7 vs. 6, p<0.001). Prostate-specific antigen recurrence was significantly worse compared with age-matched controls for younger patients with high-stage or high-grade lesions (p<0.001). Importantly operative time, analgesic requirements, hospital stay, convalescence, and complication rates were comparable. Urinary continence rate was significantly better in group eL-RPE2 at 6 mo (67% vs. 91%, respectively, p<0.001). Group eL-RPE1 and group OPEN-RPE patients had statistically similar pathologic stage and Gleason score (each p>0.05), similar operative time (p=0.12), but less blood loss (p<0.001), shorter hospital stay (p<0.001), and more rapid convalescence (p<0.001) occurred in eL-RPE1. CONCLUSIONS: eL-RPE is feasible and efficacious even in elderly patients with unfavorable, large-volume disease. eL-RPE offers the advantages of decreased blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and more rapid recovery over OPEN-RPE. However, the elderly patient must be informed preoperatively about the observed higher incontinence rate.
Authors: Leah Y Nakamura; Rafael N Nunez; Paul E Andrews; Robert G Ferrigni; Mitchell R Humphreys; Scott K Swanson; Christopher E Wolter; Erik P Castle Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2011-02-05
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
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
Authors: Ahmed Magheli; Jonas Busch; Natalia Leva; Mark Schrader; Serdar Deger; Kurt Miller; Michael Lein Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2014-02-07 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: Jae Hyun Ryu; Yun Beom Kim; Tae Young Jung; Sun Il Kim; Seok-Soo Byun; Dong Deuk Kwon; Duk Yoon Kim; Tae Hee Oh; Tag Keun Yoo; Woo Jin Ko Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2016-04-25 Impact factor: 2.153