PURPOSE: We assessed the impact of prostate size on operative difficulty as measured by estimated blood loss, operating room time and positive surgical margins. In addition, we assessed the impact on biochemical recurrence and the functional outcomes of potency and continence at 1 year after radical prostatectomy as well as postoperative bladder neck contracture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 1998 to 2007, 3,067 men underwent radical prostatectomy by 1 of 5 dedicated prostate surgeons with no neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy. Pathological specimen weight was used as a measure of prostate size. Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression analysis was used to study the association between specimen weight, and biochemical recurrence and surgical margin status, respectively, controlling for adverse pathological features. Continence and potency were analyzed controlling for age, nerve sparing status and surgical approach. RESULTS: With increasing prostate size there was increased estimated blood loss (p = 0.013) and operative time (p = 0.004), and a decrease in positive surgical margins (84 of 632 [14%] for 40 gm or less, 99 of 862 [12%] for 41 to 50 gm, 78 of 842 [10%] for 51 to 65 gm, 68 of 731 [10%] for more than 65 gm, p <0.001). Biochemical recurrence was observed in 186 of 2,882 patients followed postoperatively and was not significantly associated with specimen weight (p = 0.3). Complete continence was observed in 1,165 of 1,422 patients (82%) and potency in 425 of 827 (51%) at 1 year. Specimen weight was not significantly associated with potency (p = 0.8), continence (p = 0.08) or bladder neck contracture (p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Prostate size does not appear to affect biochemical recurrence or 1-year functional results. However, estimated blood loss and operative time increased with larger prostate size, and positive surgical margins are more often observed in smaller glands.
PURPOSE: We assessed the impact of prostate size on operative difficulty as measured by estimated blood loss, operating room time and positive surgical margins. In addition, we assessed the impact on biochemical recurrence and the functional outcomes of potency and continence at 1 year after radical prostatectomy as well as postoperative bladder neck contracture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 1998 to 2007, 3,067 men underwent radical prostatectomy by 1 of 5 dedicated prostate surgeons with no neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy. Pathological specimen weight was used as a measure of prostate size. Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression analysis was used to study the association between specimen weight, and biochemical recurrence and surgical margin status, respectively, controlling for adverse pathological features. Continence and potency were analyzed controlling for age, nerve sparing status and surgical approach. RESULTS: With increasing prostate size there was increased estimated blood loss (p = 0.013) and operative time (p = 0.004), and a decrease in positive surgical margins (84 of 632 [14%] for 40 gm or less, 99 of 862 [12%] for 41 to 50 gm, 78 of 842 [10%] for 51 to 65 gm, 68 of 731 [10%] for more than 65 gm, p <0.001). Biochemical recurrence was observed in 186 of 2,882 patients followed postoperatively and was not significantly associated with specimen weight (p = 0.3). Complete continence was observed in 1,165 of 1,422 patients (82%) and potency in 425 of 827 (51%) at 1 year. Specimen weight was not significantly associated with potency (p = 0.8), continence (p = 0.08) or bladder neck contracture (p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Prostate size does not appear to affect biochemical recurrence or 1-year functional results. However, estimated blood loss and operative time increased with larger prostate size, and positive surgical margins are more often observed in smaller glands.
Authors: Jason C Massengill; Leon Sun; Judd W Moul; Hongyu Wu; David G McLeod; Christopher Amling; Raymond Lance; John Foley; Wade Sexton; Leo Kusuda; Andrew Chung; Douglas Soderdahl; Timothy Donahue Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Stephen J Freedland; WilliamJ Aronson; Joseph C Presti; Christopher J Kane; Martha K Terris; David Elashoff; Christopher L Amling Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Adam W Levinson; Nicholas T Ward; Aaron Sulman; Lynda Z Mettee; Richard E Link; Li-Ming Su; Christian P Pavlovich Journal: J Endourol Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Brian A Link; Rebecca Nelson; David Y Josephson; Jeffrey S Yoshida; Laura E Crocitto; Mark H Kawachi; Timothy G Wilson Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-07-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ioannis Anastasiou; Stavros I Tyritzis; Ioannis Adamakis; Dionysios Mitropoulos; Konstantinos G Stravodimos; Ioannis Katafigiotis; Antonios Balangas; Anastasios Kollias; Kitty Pavlakis; Constantinos A Constantinides Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2010-10-30 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Christian von Bodman; Kazuhito Matsushita; Caroline Savage; Mika P Matikainen; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Farhang Rabbani; Oguz Akin; Jaspreet S Sandhu Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-01-20 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jung Ki Jo; Jong Jin Oh; Sangchul Lee; Seong Jin Jeong; Sung Kyu Hong; Seok-Soo Byun; Sang Eun Lee Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Ted A Skolarus; Ryan C Hedgepeth; Yun Zhang; Alon Z Weizer; Jeffrey S Montgomery; David C Miller; David P Wood; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: Urology Date: 2010-08-13 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Jason P Izard; Marco A Salazar; Suman Chatterjee; Daniel W Lin; Jonathan L Wright Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2013 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Carl A Olsson; Hugh J Lavery; Dov Sebrow; Ardavan Akhavan; Adam W Levinson; Jonathan S Brajtbord; John Carlucci; Paul Muntner; David B Samadi Journal: Arab J Urol Date: 2011-11-16