Literature DB >> 19145427

[Seminal vesicle sparing radical perineal prostatectomy].

S Schäfers1, P de Geeter, H Löhmer, P Albers.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The early and mid-term oncological and functional results of a seminal vesicle sparing modification of perineal nerve sparing radical prostatectomy (SV-RPP) was compared to the classical perineal (RPP) and retroperitoneal (RRP) approaches.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From July 2003 to December 2007, 702 radical prostatectomies (417 RPP, 285 RRP) were performed by 3 surgeons (mean follow-up 17 months, range 0-48 months). RPP was chosen under the following conditions: PSA<10 ng/ml, Gleason sum<7 and volume<50 ml. A seminal vesicle sparing technique (SV-RPP) was used in 47% of the RPPs.
RESULTS: With a significantly shorter average operation (OR) time (SV-RPP 90 min, RPP 144 min, RRP 165 min), transfusion rate (SV-RPP 3%, RPP 9.1%, RRP 11.9%) and rate of anastomotic leaks at day 10 (SV-RPP 6.4%, RPP 10.3%, RRP 27.8%) the pT2 positive surgical margin rate with SV-RPP (3.4%) was significantly lower than with RPP (9.6%) and RPP (8.4%). For pT2-R0 tumors PSA relapse>0.2 ng/ml occurred in 12.5%, 13.6% and 8.2%, respectively (not significant). Continence rates (0-1 pad) for SV-RPP were significantly better compared to RPP and RRP after 4 weeks (59.3%, 41.0% and 45.4%, respectively) and 12 months (95.7%, 86.4% and 86.8%, respectively)
CONCLUSIONS: SV-RPP represents an improved perineal technique with respect to intraoperative and postoperative complications whilst maintaining an oncological outcome comparable to RPP and RRP. Leaving seminal vesicles in situ did not result in increased PSA relapse rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19145427     DOI: 10.1007/s00120-008-1925-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urologe A        ISSN: 0340-2592            Impact factor:   0.639


  33 in total

1.  Radical perineal prostatectomy: oncological outcome during a 20-year period.

Authors:  C E Iselin; J E Robertson; D F Paulson
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: incidence by definition, risk factors and temporal trend in a large series with a long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Emilio Sacco; Tommaso Prayer-Galetti; Francesco Pinto; Simonetta Fracalanza; Giovanni Betto; Francesco Pagano; Walter Artibani
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 5.588

3.  [Potency-sparing radical perineal prostatectomy].

Authors:  G Jakse; B Brehmer; H Borchers; A Verger-Kuhnke; S Biesterfeld
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2003-01-15       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  Changing patterns of pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE.

Authors:  Jun Kawakami; Maxwell V Meng; Natalia Sadetsky; David M Latini; Janeen Duchane; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Radical perineal prostatectomy and simultaneous extended pelvic lymph node dissection via the same incision.

Authors:  Hansjörg Keller; Joachim Lehmann; Jörn Beier
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-10-20       Impact factor: 20.096

6.  Cost comparison of radical retropubic and radical perineal prostatectomy: single institution experience.

Authors:  Ari D Silverstein; Alon Z Weizer; Jeannette M Dowell; Brian K Auge; David F Paulson; Philipp Dahm
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  Nerve-sparing surgery significantly affects long-term continence after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Kalyana C Nandipati; Rupesh Raina; Ashok Agarwal; Craig D Zippe
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations.

Authors:  P C Walsh; H Lepor; J C Eggleston
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 4.104

9.  [The radical retropubic prostatectomy -- gold standard for prostate cancer?].

Authors:  R Thiel
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 0.639

10.  A centralized comparison of radical perineal and retropubic prostatectomy specimens: is there a difference according to the surgical approach?

Authors:  Howard J Korman; Patrick B Leu; Ray R Huang; Neal S Goldstein
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  2 in total

1.  Case for resurgence of radical perineal prostatecomy in Indian subcontinent.

Authors:  Rajeev Sood; Nikhil Khattar; Rishi Nayyar; Sachin Kathuria; Vineet Narang; Devashish Kaushal
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2012-10

2.  Application of Dried Human Amnion Graft to Improve Post-Prostatectomy Incontinence and Potency: A Randomized Exploration Study Protocol.

Authors:  Dimitri Barski; Holger Gerullis; Thorsten Ecke; Mihaly Boros; Jan Brune; Ulrich Beutner; Igor Tsaur; Albert Ramon; Thomas Otto
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2019-11-28       Impact factor: 3.845

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.