PURPOSE: While perineal radical prostatectomy has been largely supplanted by retropubic and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy, it was the predominant surgical approach for prostate cancer for many years. In our population based study we compared the use and outcomes of perineal radical prostatectomy vs retropubic and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified men diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2003 to 2005 who underwent perineal (452), minimally invasive (1,938) and retropubic (6,899) radical prostatectomy using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked data through 2007. We compared postoperative 30-day and anastomotic stricture complications, incontinence and erectile dysfunction, and cancer therapy (hormonal therapy and/or radiotherapy). RESULTS: Perineal radical prostatectomy comprised 4.9% of radical prostatectomies during our study period and use decreased with time. On propensity score adjusted analysis men who underwent perineal vs retropubic radical prostatectomy had shorter hospitalization (median 2 vs 3 days, p < 0.001), received fewer heterologous transfusions (7.2% vs 20.8%, p < 0.001) and required less additional cancer therapy (4.9% vs 6.9%, p = 0.020). When comparing perineal vs minimally invasive radical prostatectomy men who underwent the former required more heterologous transfusions (7.2% vs 2.7%, p = 0.018) but experienced fewer miscellaneous medical complications (5.3% vs 10.0%, p = 0.045) and erectile dysfunction procedures (1.4 vs 2.3/100 person-years, p = 0.008). The mean and median expenditure for perineal radical prostatectomy in the first 6 months postoperatively was $1,500 less than for retropubic or minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Men who undergo perineal vs retropubic and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy experienced favorable outcomes associated with lower expenditure. Urologists may be abandoning an underused but cost-effective surgical approach that compares favorably with its successors.
PURPOSE: While perineal radical prostatectomy has been largely supplanted by retropubic and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy, it was the predominant surgical approach for prostate cancer for many years. In our population based study we compared the use and outcomes of perineal radical prostatectomy vs retropubic and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified men diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2003 to 2005 who underwent perineal (452), minimally invasive (1,938) and retropubic (6,899) radical prostatectomy using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked data through 2007. We compared postoperative 30-day and anastomotic stricture complications, incontinence and erectile dysfunction, and cancer therapy (hormonal therapy and/or radiotherapy). RESULTS: Perineal radical prostatectomy comprised 4.9% of radical prostatectomies during our study period and use decreased with time. On propensity score adjusted analysis men who underwent perineal vs retropubic radical prostatectomy had shorter hospitalization (median 2 vs 3 days, p < 0.001), received fewer heterologous transfusions (7.2% vs 20.8%, p < 0.001) and required less additional cancer therapy (4.9% vs 6.9%, p = 0.020). When comparing perineal vs minimally invasive radical prostatectomy men who underwent the former required more heterologous transfusions (7.2% vs 2.7%, p = 0.018) but experienced fewer miscellaneous medical complications (5.3% vs 10.0%, p = 0.045) and erectile dysfunction procedures (1.4 vs 2.3/100 person-years, p = 0.008). The mean and median expenditure for perineal radical prostatectomy in the first 6 months postoperatively was $1,500 less than for retropubic or minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Men who undergo perineal vs retropubic and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy experienced favorable outcomes associated with lower expenditure. Urologists may be abandoning an underused but cost-effective surgical approach that compares favorably with its successors.
Authors: Jan Schmitges; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Marco Bianchi; Maxine Sun; Firas Abdollah; Sascha A Ahyai; Claudio Jeldres; Thomas Steuber; Paul Perrotte; Shahrokh F Shariat; Mani Menon; Francesco Montorsi; Markus Graefen; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2011-12-13 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Florian Rudolf Schroeck; Bruce L Jacobs; Sam B Bhayani; Paul L Nguyen; David Penson; Jim Hu Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 20.096