OBJECTIVES: To compare the surgical margin (SM) status between open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RRP and LRP, respectively) specimens. METHODS: Surgical specimens from 137 patients undergoing LRP and 220 patients undergoing RRP for clinically localized prostate cancer were included in the analysis. SM status in each resected specimen, including the number of positive SM as well as their location, was examined. RESULTS: The incidence of positive SM in the LRP group was significantly greater than that in the RRP group. Despite the lack of significant difference in the proportion of solitary positive SM between these two groups, the proportion of multiple positive SM in the LRP group was significantly greater than that in the RRP group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of anterior positive SM between the two groups, while the incidences of positive SM at the apex, posterior site and bladder neck in the LRP group were significantly greater than those in the RRP group. Furthermore, there were no significant preoperative parameters predicting positive SM in the LRP group. On the other hand, the biopsy Gleason score and clinical T stage were identified as significant predictors of positive SM in the RRP group, of which the biopsy Gleason score was independently related to the presence of positive SM. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical T stage and Gleason score could be useful predictors of SM status following RRP, while positive SM in LRP specimens were detected irrespective of preoperative parameters, suggesting the need for an effort for further refining the LRP procedure.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the surgical margin (SM) status between open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RRP and LRP, respectively) specimens. METHODS: Surgical specimens from 137 patients undergoing LRP and 220 patients undergoing RRP for clinically localized prostate cancer were included in the analysis. SM status in each resected specimen, including the number of positive SM as well as their location, was examined. RESULTS: The incidence of positive SM in the LRP group was significantly greater than that in the RRP group. Despite the lack of significant difference in the proportion of solitary positive SM between these two groups, the proportion of multiple positive SM in the LRP group was significantly greater than that in the RRP group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of anterior positive SM between the two groups, while the incidences of positive SM at the apex, posterior site and bladder neck in the LRP group were significantly greater than those in the RRP group. Furthermore, there were no significant preoperative parameters predicting positive SM in the LRP group. On the other hand, the biopsy Gleason score and clinical T stage were identified as significant predictors of positive SM in the RRP group, of which the biopsy Gleason score was independently related to the presence of positive SM. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical T stage and Gleason score could be useful predictors of SM status following RRP, while positive SM in LRP specimens were detected irrespective of preoperative parameters, suggesting the need for an effort for further refining the LRP procedure.
Authors: Tomasz Golabek; Jaroslaw Jaskulski; Piotr Jarecki; Przemysław Dudek; Tomasz Szopiński; Piotr Chłosta Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2014-09-05 Impact factor: 1.195