OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of previous transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) on surgical, functional, and oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. METHODS: From a series of 2100 patients undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, we compared the intraoperative complications and functional and oncologic outcomes for 55 patients who had been diagnosed with prostate carcinoma on previous TURP (group 1), with those of 55 matched patients who had not undergone previous prostate surgery (group 2). The patients were match-paired for age, operating surgeon, procedure type (eg, nerve-sparing, lymph node dissection), anastamotic technique, pathologic stage, and Gleason score. The minimal duration of follow-up was 24 months. RESULTS: Both groups were similar with respect to patient age and pathologic stage. Of those with Stage cT1a and cT1b, 83.6% had a clinically significant tumor, with a mean tumor volume of 1.7 cm(3) for those with Stage cT1a and 2.4 cm(3) for those with Stage cT1b. The positive surgical margin rate was 14.5% and 16.3% for groups 1 and 2, respectively. Biochemical recurrence developed in 12.7% and 11% of patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Neither outcome was significantly different between the 2 groups. The long-term continence rates were similar; however, previous TURP was associated with a lower continence rate (49.1%) at 3 months compared with 61.8% for group 2 (P = .01). A nerve-sparing technique was used in 54% of group 1 patients. No significant difference was found in the potency rates between the 2 groups at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after TURP is a challenging, but oncologically safe, procedure. The interval to total continence was delayed, but the potency rates remain unchanged.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of previous transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) on surgical, functional, and oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. METHODS: From a series of 2100 patients undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, we compared the intraoperative complications and functional and oncologic outcomes for 55 patients who had been diagnosed with prostate carcinoma on previous TURP (group 1), with those of 55 matched patients who had not undergone previous prostate surgery (group 2). The patients were match-paired for age, operating surgeon, procedure type (eg, nerve-sparing, lymph node dissection), anastamotic technique, pathologic stage, and Gleason score. The minimal duration of follow-up was 24 months. RESULTS: Both groups were similar with respect to patient age and pathologic stage. Of those with Stage cT1a and cT1b, 83.6% had a clinically significant tumor, with a mean tumor volume of 1.7 cm(3) for those with Stage cT1a and 2.4 cm(3) for those with Stage cT1b. The positive surgical margin rate was 14.5% and 16.3% for groups 1 and 2, respectively. Biochemical recurrence developed in 12.7% and 11% of patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Neither outcome was significantly different between the 2 groups. The long-term continence rates were similar; however, previous TURP was associated with a lower continence rate (49.1%) at 3 months compared with 61.8% for group 2 (P = .01). A nerve-sparing technique was used in 54% of group 1 patients. No significant difference was found in the potency rates between the 2 groups at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after TURP is a challenging, but oncologically safe, procedure. The interval to total continence was delayed, but the potency rates remain unchanged.
Authors: Dae Keun Kim; Sang Jin Kim; Hong Sang Moon; Sung Yul Park; Yong Tae Kim; Hong Yong Choi; Tchun Yong Lee; Hae Young Park Journal: Korean J Urol Date: 2010-05-19
Authors: Doo Yong Chung; Hyeok Jun Goh; Dong Hoon Koh; Min Seok Kim; Jong Soo Lee; Won Sik Jang; Young Deuk Choi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-12-28 Impact factor: 3.240