Literature DB >> 9507853

Surgical modifications of radical retropubic prostatectomy to decrease incidence of positive surgical margins.

N F Alsikafi1, C B Brendler.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether recent surgical modifications in the technique of radical retropubic prostatectomy decrease the incidence of positive surgical margins.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of 144 consecutive patients a mean of 60.8 years old who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy using a modified surgical technique. Mean prostate specific antigen was 8.6 ng./ml. and mean Gleason grade was 5.8. Surgical modifications included division of the dorsal venous complex of the penis 10 to 15 mm. distal to the prostatic apex; transection of the urethra 3 mm. beyond the prostatic apex; division of the anterior aspect of the urethra, leaving the investing periurethral musculature intact, and division of the posterior aspect of the urethra en bloc with the striated urethral sphincter; sharp dissection of the rectourethralis muscle and remaining attachments of the prostate to the rectum; wide excision of the neurovascular bundle posterolateral to the prostate when adjacent induration or tumor is present, and division of the bladder neck, leaving a 5 mm. cuff of bladder tissue with the prostate.
RESULTS: Of 144 consecutive patients 16 (11.1%) had positive surgical margins at a total of 20 sites, including 7 (35%) at the apex, 8 (40%) posterolateral, 3 (15%) anterior and 2 (10%) at the bladder neck. These results compare favorably with the positive surgical margin rates after radical prostatectomy previously reported in the literature.
CONCLUSIONS: These surgical modifications appear to have decreased the incidence of positive surgical margins after radical retropubic prostatectomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9507853

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  6 in total

Review 1.  Prostate cancer: a comprehensive review.

Authors:  S N Pentyala; J Lee; K Hsieh; W C Waltzer; A Trocchia; L Musacchia; M J Rebecchi; S A Khan
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 3.064

Review 2.  Value of frozen section biopsies during radical prostatectomy: significance of the histological results.

Authors:  Miguel Ramírez-Backhaus; Robert Rabenalt; Sunjay Jain; Minh Do; Evangelos Liatsikos; Roman Ganzer; Lars-Christian Horn; Martin Burchardt; Fernando Jiménez-Cruz; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2008-12-10       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Cancer Care Ontario Guidelines for radical prostatectomy: striving for continuous quality improvement in community practice.

Authors:  Todd M Webster; Christopher Newell; John F Amrhein; Ken J Newell
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 1.862

4.  Impact of a multidisciplinary continuous quality improvement program on the positive surgical margin rate after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Karim Touijer; Kentaro Kuroiwa; Andrew Vickers; Victor E Reuter; Hedwig Hricak; Peter T Scardino; Bertrand Guillonneau
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-01-19       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Guideline for optimization of surgical and pathological quality performance for radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer management: evidentiary base.

Authors:  Joseph L Chin; John Srigley; Linda A Mayhew; R Bryan Rumble; Claire Crossley; Amber Hunter; Neil Fleshner; Bish Bora; Robin McLeod; Sheila McNair; Bernard Langer; Andrew Evans
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.862

6.  Age-stratified outcomes after robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Kevin C Zorn; Frederick P Mendiola; David E Rapp; Albert A Mikhail; Shang Lin; Marcelo A Orvieto; Gregory P Zagaja; Arieh L Shalhav
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2007-01-24
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.