OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare scar-related satisfaction in patients treated with open (ORP) versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). PATIENTS AND METHOD: We prospectively included all patients treated with ORP and LRP in our department between March and June 2010. Scar-related outcomes were collected at 1 and 3 months postoperatively. Three months after surgery, all patients filled up a questionnaire concerning their scar-related symptoms, scar self-consciousness and satisfaction. These variables were statistically compared between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients were included for analysis. Of them, 48, 49 and 4 were treated with LRP, ORP and LRP converted to ORP, respectively. Age distribution was not statistically different between groups. Postoperatively, 5 patients experienced skin infection on their scar site, 2 in the ORP and 3 in the LRP group. The most frequently reported symptom was scar itching, that was more frequent after LRP, although difference was not significant (33 vs. 19%, p = 0.2). According to patient scar-related consciousness, satisfaction and impact on quality of life, no differences were reported between groups. Impact on quality of life was insignificant in 27 (55%) versus 21 (44%) patients after ORP and LRP, respectively (p = 0.3). CONCLUSION: With an overall low impact on satisfaction and quality of life, scars gendered by LRP and ORP were not different from patients' point of view. In patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, the cosmetic aspect of scars does not seem to be a concern.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare scar-related satisfaction in patients treated with open (ORP) versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). PATIENTS AND METHOD: We prospectively included all patients treated with ORP and LRP in our department between March and June 2010. Scar-related outcomes were collected at 1 and 3 months postoperatively. Three months after surgery, all patients filled up a questionnaire concerning their scar-related symptoms, scar self-consciousness and satisfaction. These variables were statistically compared between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients were included for analysis. Of them, 48, 49 and 4 were treated with LRP, ORP and LRP converted to ORP, respectively. Age distribution was not statistically different between groups. Postoperatively, 5 patients experienced skin infection on their scar site, 2 in the ORP and 3 in the LRP group. The most frequently reported symptom was scar itching, that was more frequent after LRP, although difference was not significant (33 vs. 19%, p = 0.2). According to patient scar-related consciousness, satisfaction and impact on quality of life, no differences were reported between groups. Impact on quality of life was insignificant in 27 (55%) versus 21 (44%) patients after ORP and LRP, respectively (p = 0.3). CONCLUSION: With an overall low impact on satisfaction and quality of life, scars gendered by LRP and ORP were not different from patients' point of view. In patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, the cosmetic aspect of scars does not seem to be a concern.
Authors: Thierry Roumeguere; Renaud Bollens; Marc Vanden Bossche; Dan Rochet; David Bialek; Paul Hoffman; Thierry Quackels; Amir Damoun; Eric Wespes; Claude C Schulman; Alexandre R Zlotta Journal: World J Urol Date: 2003-04-03 Impact factor: 4.226
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: Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Walter Artibani; Andrea Cestari; Antonio Galfano; Markus Graefen; Giorgio Guazzoni; Bertrand Guillonneau; Mani Menon; Francesco Montorsi; Vipul Patel; Jens Rassweiler; Hendrik Van Poppel Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-01-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Benjamin C Brown; Stephen P McKenna; Mattea Solomon; Jeanette Wilburn; Duncan A McGrouther; Ardeshir Bayat Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Bradford Nelson; Melissa Kaufman; Gregory Broughton; Michael S Cookson; Sam S Chang; S Duke Herrell; Roxelyn G Baumgartner; Joseph A Smith Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Amy E Krambeck; David S DiMarco; Laureano J Rangel; Eric J Bergstralh; Robert P Myers; Michael L Blute; Matthew T Gettman Journal: BJU Int Date: 2008-09-03 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Carmelo Quattrone; Antonio Cicione; Carlos Oliveira; Riccardo Autorino; Francesco Cantiello; Vincenzo Mirone; Marco De Sio; Luca Carrubbo; Rocco Damiano; Carlo Pavone; Estevão Lima Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-10-26 Impact factor: 4.226