BACKGROUND: Although the first laparoscopic radical prostatectomy was performed in 1997, few midterm oncologic data have been published for the extraperitoneal procedure. OBJECTIVE: To determine the oncologic outcome of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (ELRP). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From 2000 to 2007, 1115 consecutive patients underwent ELRP for a localized prostate cancer at our department. Follow-up was scheduled and standardized for all patients and recorded into a prospective database. Median postoperative follow-up was 35.6 mo. INTERVENTION: All ELRP were performed by three surgeons at the Department of Urology, Hospital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France. MEASUREMENTS: Biochemical recurrence was defined by prostate-specific antigen level > or =0.2 ng/ml. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In pN0/pNx cancers, postoperative stage was pT2 in 664 patients (59.5%), pT3 in 350 patients (31.4%), and pT4 in 77 patients (6.9%). Positive lymph nodes were reported in 24 patients (2.2%). Margins were positive in 16.1% and 34.6% of pT2 and pT3 cancers, respectively. Final Gleason score was <7 in 288 men (25.8%), =7 in 701 men (62.9%), and >7 in 126 men (11.3%). Overall prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence-free survival was 83% at 5 yr. The 5-yr progression-free survival rates were 93.4% for pT2, 74.5% for pT3a, and 55.0% for pT3b tumors, respectively. Multivariate Cox model showed that PSA, Gleason score, pT category, nodal status, and surgical margins were significant independent predictors of biochemical recurrence-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: This assessment of oncologic results demonstrates that ELRP is a safe and effective procedure. On the basis of midterm follow-up data, the prognostic factors of PSA after ELRP failure are the same as those described previously in transperitoneal or open retropubic approaches. The oncologic results of ELRP also are in line with those reported with the use of the retropubic or the transperitoneal laparoscopic approaches. Copyright 2009 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Although the first laparoscopic radical prostatectomy was performed in 1997, few midterm oncologic data have been published for the extraperitoneal procedure. OBJECTIVE: To determine the oncologic outcome of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (ELRP). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From 2000 to 2007, 1115 consecutive patients underwent ELRP for a localized prostate cancer at our department. Follow-up was scheduled and standardized for all patients and recorded into a prospective database. Median postoperative follow-up was 35.6 mo. INTERVENTION: All ELRP were performed by three surgeons at the Department of Urology, Hospital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France. MEASUREMENTS: Biochemical recurrence was defined by prostate-specific antigen level > or =0.2 ng/ml. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In pN0/pNx cancers, postoperative stage was pT2 in 664 patients (59.5%), pT3 in 350 patients (31.4%), and pT4 in 77 patients (6.9%). Positive lymph nodes were reported in 24 patients (2.2%). Margins were positive in 16.1% and 34.6% of pT2 and pT3cancers, respectively. Final Gleason score was <7 in 288 men (25.8%), =7 in 701 men (62.9%), and >7 in 126 men (11.3%). Overall prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence-free survival was 83% at 5 yr. The 5-yr progression-free survival rates were 93.4% for pT2, 74.5% for pT3a, and 55.0% for pT3b tumors, respectively. Multivariate Cox model showed that PSA, Gleason score, pT category, nodal status, and surgical margins were significant independent predictors of biochemical recurrence-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: This assessment of oncologic results demonstrates that ELRP is a safe and effective procedure. On the basis of midterm follow-up data, the prognostic factors of PSA after ELRP failure are the same as those described previously in transperitoneal or open retropubic approaches. The oncologic results of ELRP also are in line with those reported with the use of the retropubic or the transperitoneal laparoscopic approaches. Copyright 2009 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Authors: Jonas Busch; Carsten Stephan; Annett Klutzny; Stefan Hinz; Carsten Kempkensteffen; Ergin Kilic; Michael Lein; Steffen Weikert; Kurt Miller; Ahmed Magheli Journal: World J Urol Date: 2012-05-11 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Daniel W Good; Grant D Stewart; Paimaun Zakikhani; Henry Yuen; Antony C P Riddick; Prasad R Bollina; Marie O'Donnell; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; S Alan McNeill Journal: World J Urol Date: 2013-06-13 Impact factor: 4.226