Literature DB >> 23400788

Laparoscopic versus open bilateral intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy after TUR-P for incidental prostate cancer: surgical outcomes and effect on postoperative urinary continence and sexual potency.

Christopher Springer1, Antonino Inferrera, Giovannalberto Pini, Nasreldin Mohammed, Paolo Fornara, Francesco Greco.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the surgical and functional outcomes in nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (nsLRPT) and nerve-sparing retropubic radical prostatectomy (nsRRPT) after TUR-P for incidental prostate cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2003 and August 2011, 125 nsLRPT and 128 nsRRPT for incidental prostate cancer diagnosed after TUR-P were performed at our clinic. Demographic data, peri- and postoperative measurements and functional outcomes were compared.
RESULTS: The mean operative time was 153.1 ± 35.4 min for nsLRPT and 122.5 ± 67.5 min for nsRRPT (p = 0.03). The mean catheterization time was 8 ± 1 days in the laparoscopic group and 11 ± 2 days in the open group (p = 0.02). Also, the length of hospitalization presents statistical significant difference in the two groups. Positive margins were detected in 2.4 and 4.7% of patients with pT2c tumours in the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively (p = 0.09). At a mean follow-up of 26.9 ± 9.3 months for the nsLRPT group and of 27.8 ± 9.7 months for the nsRRPT group, all patients were alive with no evidence of tumour recurrence. Twelve months postoperatively, complete continence was reported in 96.8% of patients who underwent an nsLRPT and in 89.4% of patients in the nsRRPT group (p = 0.02). At that time, 74.4% of patients in the nsLRPT group and 53.1% in the nsRRPT group reported the ability to engage in sexual intercourse (p = 0.0004).
CONCLUSION: nsLRPT after TUR-P, performed by expert surgeons, results to be a safe procedure with excellent functional outcomes with regard to the urinary continence and sexual potency.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23400788     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-013-1036-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  27 in total

1.  Intra- and peri-operative outcomes comparing radical retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: results from a prospective, randomised, single-surgeon study.

Authors:  Giorgio Guazzoni; Andrea Cestari; Richard Naspro; Matteo Riva; Antonia Centemero; Matteo Zanoni; Lorenzo Rigatti; Patrizio Rigatti
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-03-09       Impact factor: 20.096

2.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in patients following transurethral resection of the prostate.

Authors:  Ran Katz; Tomasz Borkowski; Andras Hoznek; Laurent Salomon; Matthew T Gettman; Clement Claude Abbou
Journal:  Urol Int       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.089

3.  Is laparoscopic radical prostatectomy better than traditional retropubic radical prostatectomy? An analysis of peri-operative morbidity in two contemporary series in Italy.

Authors:  Walter Artibani; Gaetano Grosso; Giacomo Novara; Giuseppe Pecoraro; Onofrio Sidoti; Alessandra Sarti; Vincenzo Ficarra
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Open radical retropubic prostatectomy gives favourable surgical and functional outcomes after transurethral resection of the prostate.

Authors:  Jüri R Palisaar; Sven Wenske; Florian Sommerer; Andreas Hinkel; Joachim Noldus
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2009-03-04       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after transurethral resection of the prostate: surgical and functional outcomes.

Authors:  Johann Menard; Alexandre de la Taille; Andras Hoznek; Yves Allory; Dimitri Vordos; René Yiou; Clément-Claude Abbou; Laurent Salomon
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 6.  Radical prostatectomy in the management of stage A carcinoma of the prostate.

Authors:  G Rossignol; P Leandri; J Ramon; J R Gautier
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy in patients previously submitted to holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for bladder outlet obstruction due to benign prostatic enlargement.

Authors:  Nazareno Suardi; Vincenzo Scattoni; Alberto Briganti; Andrea Salonia; Richard Naspro; Andrea Gallina; Andrea Cestari; Renzo Colombo; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Giorgio Guazzoni; Patrizio Rigatti; Francesco Montorsi
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2007-07-23       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Radical retropubic prostatectomy after transurethral prostatic resection.

Authors:  K Bandhauer; E Senn
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  Prospective non-randomized evaluation of four mediators of the systemic response after extraperitoneal laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Andreas Jurczok; Mario Zacharias; Sigrid Wagner; Amir Hamza; Paolo Fornara
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 5.588

10.  The use of the simplified International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) as a diagnostic tool to study the prevalence of erectile dysfunction.

Authors:  E L Rhoden; C Telöken; P R Sogari; C A Vargas Souto
Journal:  Int J Impot Res       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.896

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Is More Beneficial for Prostate Cancer Patients: A System Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Yuefeng Du; Qingzhi Long; Bin Guan; Lijun Mu; Juanhua Tian; Yumei Jiang; Xiaojing Bai; Dapeng Wu
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2018-01-14
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.