Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy:: Oncological and functional results after 700 procedures

被引:102
|
作者
Stolzenburg, JU
Rabenalt, R
Do, M
Ho, K
Dorschner, W
Waldkirch, E
Jonas, U
Schütz, A
Horn, L
Truss, MC
机构
[1] Univ Leipzig, Dept Urol, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany
[2] Univ Leipzig, Dept Pathol, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany
[3] Hannover Med Sch, Dept Urol, D-3000 Hannover, Germany
[4] Klinikum Dortmund, Dept Urol, Dortmund, Germany
来源
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY | 2005年 / 174卷 / 04期
关键词
prostatectomy; prostatic neoplasms; laparoscopy; endoscopy;
D O I
10.1097/01.ju.0000173940.49015.4a
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Purpose: We review our experience with endoscopic (totally) extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE) as first line therapy for localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: A total of 700 consecutive patients underwent EERPE. Mean patient age was 63.4 years (range 42 to 77). Mean preoperative prostate specific antigen was 10.7 ng/ml (range 1.4 to 82). A total of 206 patients (29.4%) had a history of previous lower abdominal or pelvic surgery including inguinal hernioplasty with mesh placement and 43 patients (6.1%) had a history of prostatic intervention (transurethral resection of the prostate, high intensity focused ultrasound, Millin prostatectomy, radiotherapy). After preparation of the preperitoneal space the technique of EERPE duplicates the steps of classic open descending retropubic radical prostatectomy including a nerve sparing EERPE when indicated. Results: Mean operative time was 151 minutes (range 50 to 320). There was no conversion and the transfusion rate was 0.9% in 6. Four patients (0.6%) had intraoperative rectal injuries which were treated endoscopically with a 2-layer suture. A total of 14 patients (2%) required early and 3 patients (0.4%) required late postoperative reintervention. Pathological stage was pT2a in 89 patients (12.7%), pT2b in 54 (7.7%), pT2c in 245 (35%), pT3a in 229 (32.7%), pT3b in 79 (11.2%) and pT4 in 4 patients (0.6%). Positive surgical margins were found in 10.8% (42 of 388) of patients with a pT2 tumor and in 31.2% (96 of 308) of patients with a pT3 tumor. Pelvic lymph node dissection was performed in 266 patients (38%), of whom 14 (5.3%) were found to have lymph node involvement. Mean catheterization time was 6.2 days. Six months after surgery 83.8% of the patients were completely continent, 10.4% needed I to 2 pads daily and 5.8% of patients needed more than 2 pads daily. Of all patients who underwent nerve sparing procedures, 100 patients had a postoperative followup of 6 months. Of the 66 patients with the unilateral nerve sparing approach 8 (12. 1%) had erections sufficient for intercourse and 16 of 34 patients (47. 1%) with the bilateral nerve sparing procedure had erections sufficient for intercourse with or without the help of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors. Conclusions: The results of this series are promising. Perioperative morbidity is low, and short-term oncological and functional results are favorable. Although the followup is too short to draw definite conclusions, it is obvious that a nerve sparing approach in EERPE is feasible and reproducible. Our data demonstrate that EERPE can be performed with equal efficacy and results compared with laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomy, while providing the ease and safety of a totally extraperitoneal approach, completely avoiding intraperitoneal complications.
引用
收藏
页码:1271 / 1275
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Nerve-sparing endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy
    Stolzenburg, Jens-Uwe
    McNeill, Alan
    Liatsikos, Evangelos N.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2008, 101 (07) : 909 - 928
  • [42] Intrafascial nerve sparing endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy
    Stolzenburg, J. U.
    Rabenalt, R.
    Truss, M. C.
    Liatsikos, E.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY SUPPLEMENTS, 2007, 6 (02) : 252 - 252
  • [43] Early experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy
    Raboy, A
    Albert, P
    Ferzli, G
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY-ULTRASOUND AND INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 1998, 12 (10): : 1264 - 1267
  • [44] Early experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy
    A. Raboy
    P. Albert
    G. Ferzli
    Surgical Endoscopy, 1998, 12 : 1264 - 1267
  • [45] Impact of previous surgery on endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy
    Stolzenburg, JU
    Ho, KMT
    Do, M
    Rabenalt, R
    Dorschner, W
    Truss, MC
    UROLOGY, 2005, 65 (02) : 325 - 331
  • [46] Comparison of oncological and functional results of robotic and open perineal radical prostatectomy
    Colakoglu, Yunus
    Eksi, Mithat
    Ozlu, Deniz Noyan
    Simsek, Abdulmuttalip
    Tugcu, Volkan
    Tasci, Ali Ihsan
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2024, 31 (09) : 994 - 1000
  • [47] Functional and oncological outcomes of men under 60 years of age having endoscopic surgery for prostate cancer are optimal following intrafascial endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy
    Stewart, Grant D.
    El-Mokadem, Ismail
    McLornan, Marguerite E.
    Stolzenburg, Jens-Uwe
    McNeill, S. Alan
    SURGEON-JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL COLLEGES OF SURGEONS OF EDINBURGH AND IRELAND, 2011, 9 (02): : 65 - 71
  • [48] EXTRAPERITONEAL LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: ONCOLOGIC AND FUNCTIONAL RESULTS REGARDING 175 CASES
    Baptistussi, M.
    Morihisa, M.
    Gewher, E.
    Martins, A.
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2009, 23 : A240 - A241
  • [49] 4-Ports endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: preliminary and learning curve results
    Barbosa Junior, Humberto do Nascimento
    Siqueira Junior, Tiberio Moreno
    Barreto, Francualdo
    Menezes, Leonardo Gomes
    Catunda Luna, Mauro Jose
    Calado, Adriano Almeida
    INTERNATIONAL BRAZ J UROL, 2016, 42 (03): : 438 - 448