OBJECTIVE: To determine the cancer control afforded by radical prostatectomy in patients who underwent either an open, laparoscopic, or robotic procedure for localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We collected data on all patients treated between 2000 and 2004. We recorded age, BMI, PSA, Gleason score and 2002 TNM stage, type of surgery, perioperative parameters, postoperative complications, pathological data, recurrence and outcome. RESULTS: Data were analyzed for 239 patients. Overall, the mean follow-up was 49.7 (18-103) months. Surgical procedures were open in 83 patients, laparoscopic in 85, and robot-assisted in 71. The transfusion rate was 5.6% for robotic cases, 5.9% for laparoscopic cases and 9.6% for open prostatectomy (p = 0.03). The positive margin rates in open, laparoscopic, and robotic cases were 18.1, 18.8, and 16.9% (p = 0.52), respectively. Only margin status, PSA level (>10), and Gleason score (>7) were associated with recurrence in univariate analysis (p < 0.05), and only the margin status and the Gleason score were significant in multivariate analysis. The statistical power was 0.7. Overall, the 5-year PSA-free survival rate was 88%. The 5-year PSA-free survival rates for the specific surgical approaches were 87.8% in open cases, 88.1% in laparoscopic cases, and 89.6% in robot-assisted prostatectomies, and there was no statistical difference between the approaches (p = 0.93). CONCLUSION: Although open radical prostatectomy remains the gold standard procedure, we found no differences between these three techniques regarding early oncologic outcomes. These results are still preliminary, however, and further studies of larger populations with a longer follow-up are needed to make any statement regarding surgical strategy.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the cancer control afforded by radical prostatectomy in patients who underwent either an open, laparoscopic, or robotic procedure for localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We collected data on all patients treated between 2000 and 2004. We recorded age, BMI, PSA, Gleason score and 2002 TNM stage, type of surgery, perioperative parameters, postoperative complications, pathological data, recurrence and outcome. RESULTS: Data were analyzed for 239 patients. Overall, the mean follow-up was 49.7 (18-103) months. Surgical procedures were open in 83 patients, laparoscopic in 85, and robot-assisted in 71. The transfusion rate was 5.6% for robotic cases, 5.9% for laparoscopic cases and 9.6% for open prostatectomy (p = 0.03). The positive margin rates in open, laparoscopic, and robotic cases were 18.1, 18.8, and 16.9% (p = 0.52), respectively. Only margin status, PSA level (>10), and Gleason score (>7) were associated with recurrence in univariate analysis (p < 0.05), and only the margin status and the Gleason score were significant in multivariate analysis. The statistical power was 0.7. Overall, the 5-year PSA-free survival rate was 88%. The 5-year PSA-free survival rates for the specific surgical approaches were 87.8% in open cases, 88.1% in laparoscopic cases, and 89.6% in robot-assisted prostatectomies, and there was no statistical difference between the approaches (p = 0.93). CONCLUSION: Although open radical prostatectomy remains the gold standard procedure, we found no differences between these three techniques regarding early oncologic outcomes. These results are still preliminary, however, and further studies of larger populations with a longer follow-up are needed to make any statement regarding surgical strategy.
Authors: Thomas E Ahlering; David Woo; Louis Eichel; David I Lee; Robert Edwards; Douglas W Skarecky Journal: Urology Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 2.649
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
Authors: Andrew J Vickers; Fernando J Bianco; Mithat Gonen; Angel M Cronin; James A Eastham; Deborah Schrag; Eric A Klein; Alwyn M Reuther; Michael W Kattan; J Edson Pontes; Peter T Scardino Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2008-01-14 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Matthew T Gettman; András Hoznek; Laurent Salomon; Ran Katz; Tomasz Borkowski; Patrick Antiphon; Adrian Lobontiu; Clément-Claude Abbou Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: François Audenet; Elise Seringe; Sarah J Drouin; Eva Comperat; Olivier Cussenot; Marc-Olivier Bitker; Morgan Rouprêt Journal: World J Urol Date: 2011-06-03 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Udo Nagele; Aristotelis G Anastasiadis; Ute Walcher; Andre P Nicklas; Axel S Merseburger; Thomas R W Herrmann Journal: World J Urol Date: 2011-07-08 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Charles Dariane; Chloé Le Cossec; Sarah J Drouin; Benoit Wolff; Benjamin Granger; Pierre Mozer; Marc-Olivier Bitker; Shahrokh F Shariat; Olivier Cussenot; Morgan Rouprêt Journal: World J Urol Date: 2013-04-26 Impact factor: 4.226