Mustafa Güneş1, Mehmet Akyüz2, Fatih Uruç3, Bekir Aras4, Muammer Altok1, Mehmet Umul1. 1. Department of Urology, Süleyman Demirel University Faculty of Medicine, Isparta, Turkey. 2. Clinic of Urology, Haydarpaşa Numune Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey. 3. Clinic of Urology, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey. 4. Department of Urology, Dumlupınar University Evliya Çelebi Training and Research Hospital, Kütahya, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Radical prostatectomy is the standard treatment modality for localized prostate cancer. Minimally invasive surgery, especially robotic surgery, has attracted interest in the last 10 years, and open surgery has been less preferred. Among the open surgical procedures, the perineal approach is the least preferred by urologists, which may be related to their perception of its overall difficulty. In this study, we aimed to present our initial experience with learning and performing radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) and to draw attention to this method. MATERIAL AND METHODS: After a short training period between November 2011 and May 2013, RPP was performed on 9 patients with localized prostate cancer. The patients were evaluated as for medical, and perioperative and major postoperative complications. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 60.4±5.3 (50-68) years, the mean preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value was 5.8±1.3 (4.0-7.6) ng/mL and the mean prostate volume was 38.8±7.7 (28-54) cc. The biopsy Gleason score ranged from 5 to 7. The median follow-up period was 14 (3-30) months. Anastomotic stricture did not occur in any of the patients. Of the 9 patients, 4 (44%) were immediately continent after catheter removal, while the remaining patients were continent at the end of three months. Of the 7 patients who underwent nerve-sparing surgery, 2 had postoperative spontaneous erections. Erectile function was maintained with phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE-5) inhibitor treatment in 3, and with intracavernosal injection in 1 patient. Penile prosthesis implantation was performed in 1 patient. CONCLUSION: RPP has been a promising procedure at the start with its favorable oncologic and functional outcomes. This method should be considered by urologists, although it has been previously perceived as a challenging surgical procedure to perform.
OBJECTIVE: Radical prostatectomy is the standard treatment modality for localized prostate cancer. Minimally invasive surgery, especially robotic surgery, has attracted interest in the last 10 years, and open surgery has been less preferred. Among the open surgical procedures, the perineal approach is the least preferred by urologists, which may be related to their perception of its overall difficulty. In this study, we aimed to present our initial experience with learning and performing radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) and to draw attention to this method. MATERIAL AND METHODS: After a short training period between November 2011 and May 2013, RPP was performed on 9 patients with localized prostate cancer. The patients were evaluated as for medical, and perioperative and major postoperative complications. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 60.4±5.3 (50-68) years, the mean preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value was 5.8±1.3 (4.0-7.6) ng/mL and the mean prostate volume was 38.8±7.7 (28-54) cc. The biopsy Gleason score ranged from 5 to 7. The median follow-up period was 14 (3-30) months. Anastomotic stricture did not occur in any of the patients. Of the 9 patients, 4 (44%) were immediately continent after catheter removal, while the remaining patients were continent at the end of three months. Of the 7 patients who underwent nerve-sparing surgery, 2 had postoperative spontaneous erections. Erectile function was maintained with phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE-5) inhibitor treatment in 3, and with intracavernosal injection in 1 patient. Penile prosthesis implantation was performed in 1 patient. CONCLUSION: RPP has been a promising procedure at the start with its favorable oncologic and functional outcomes. This method should be considered by urologists, although it has been previously perceived as a challenging surgical procedure to perform.
Authors: Rolf Gillitzer; Christian Thomas; Christoph Wiesner; Jon Jones; Folke Schmidt; Christian Hampel; Walburgis Brenner; Joachim W Thüroff; Sebastian W Melchior Journal: Urology Date: 2009-12-06 Impact factor: 2.649