The endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): technique and initial experience

Using the experiences of the extraperitoneal (endoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy and inguinal hernia repair) and the transperitoneal approach (laparoscopic radical prostatectomy), we developed a totally extraperitoneal approach to endoscopic radical prostatectomy. In view of the favourable short-term outcome, we describe the technique of totally extraperitoneal endoscopic radical prostatectomy (EERPE) as a now standardised procedure. After creating the preperitoneal space by balloon dissection, five trocars were placed in the hypogastrium, allowing immediate access to the space of Retzius. The surgical technique of EERPE replicates the steps of the classical retropubic descending radical prostatectomy with slight modifications. The procedure starts with exposing the Retzius space and pelvic lymph node dissection. After that, the endopelvic fascia and the puboprostatic ligaments are incised, followed by ligating the Santorini plexus. The actual prostate dissection is similar to the open descending approach: bladder neck dissection, freeing of the seminal vesicles, transsectioning of the prostatic vesicles (with or without preserving the neurovascular bundles) and, finally, apical dissection. A water-tight urethrovesical anastomosis is performed with interrupted sutures. There were 20 patients who underwent EERPE. Mean operating time was 170 min with no conversion. No major complications occurred. Only one patient required a blood transfusion. The catheter could be removed on postoperative day 6 (n = 17) or on postoperative day 12 (n = 3). Final pathologic evaluations were 4 stage pT2a, 10 stage pT2b, 5 stage pT3a, and 1 pT3b. Surgical margins were negative in 17 patients. By avoiding entry into the peritoneal cavity, therefore, obviating intra-abdominal complications, such as bowel injury, ileus, or intestinal adhesions, the extraperitoneal endoscopic access provides a safe and minimally invasive approach to the prostate, combining the advantages of minimally invasive laparoscopy and retropubic open prostatectomy.     

Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective evaluation of 600 cases

PURPOSE: We report our experience with the extraperitoneal approach to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. We describe the technique, clinical and oncological results, and functional outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From February 2002, to March 2004, 600 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies were performed by an extraperitoneal approach and evaluated prospectively. RESULTS: A total of 599 extraperitoneal procedures were performed successfully. Mean operative time was 173 minutes. Mean operative blood loss was 380 cc. The transfusion rate was 1.2%. The major and minor complications rate was 2.3% and 9.2%, respectively. The reoperation rate was 1.7%. Mean hospital stay was 6.3 days. Pathological stage was pT2 and pT3 in 72% and 28% of cases, respectively. Mean Gleason score was 7. The overall positive margin rate was 17.7% (14.6% and 25.6% of pT2 and pT3 tumors, respectively). Median followup was 12 months. Of the patients 95% had prostate specific antigen less than 0.2 ng/ml. Patients were evaluated by a self-questionnaire sent by mail before and after surgery (International Continence Society and International Index of Erectile Function-5). At a median followup of 12 months 84% of the patients were continent (no pad), 7% used 1 precautionary pad and 7% needed 1 pad routinely. At a median followup of 6 months in preoperatively potent patients (International Index of Erectile Function-5 greater than 20) the postoperative erection and intercourse rate was 64% and 43%, respectively, in those with bilateral nerve bundle preservation. CONCLUSIONS: The extraperitoneal technique is a reliable approach to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.     

Surgical margins in radical prostatectomy: a comparison between retropubic and laparoscopic surgery

Objectives To compare positive surgical margins in both radical retropubic prostatectomies and laparoscopic surgery in two reference centres in Brazil. Materials and methods One hundred and seventy nine pathological studies from patients, who underwent radical prostatectomy due to prostate adenocarcinoma, 89 submitted to retropubic surgery and 90 to laparoscopic surgery, were analyzed. Inclusion criteria Patients with PSA ≤15 ng/ml, and a Gleason score ≤7 at the prostate biopsy, maximum T2 clinical staging. Results There has been surgical margin compromising in 41.57% of the patients submitted to retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), 34.21% of which were at pT2 stage and 84.61% were at pT3 stage. In patients submitted to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) positive surgical margin was found at 24.44% of the cases: 20.98% of which were at pT2 stage and 55.55% at pT3 stage. Conclusions In the analyzed samples, proportion of positive surgical margin was higher in RRP than in LRP (P = 0.023). A higher number of patients on a randomized prospective study would be necessary for a better comparison between the groups.     

Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technique

PURPOSE: We have performed more than 250 radical prostatectomies using the da Vinci (Intuitive Surgical, Mountain View, California) surgical system. Our initial cases were done using the classic Montsouris approach. However, after gaining familiarity with the robot we modified our technique to reflect our experience with open radical retropubic prostatectomy. We detail the Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy technique that we currently use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The robotic technique requires 2 teams, namely a skilled laparoscopic team at the patient and a skilled open surgeon at the console. Dissection is started anterior to the bladder and it continues extraperitoneally. The endopelvic fascia is opened and the dorsal vein complex is secured. The apex of the prostate is dissected free, releasing the neurovascular bundles at the apex. The bladder neck is then incised, and the seminal vesicles and vasa are transected. Posterior dissection is done within the posterior layer of Denonvilliers' fascia, preserving the neurovascular bundles and lateral prostatic fascia. The apex is transected and frozen sections are obtained from the parietal margins. Vesicourethral anastomosis is formed with 2 continuous sutures. RESULTS: In the last 100 cases mean operative time was 2.5 hours and average blood loss was 150 ml. (range 25 to 525 cc.). Median specimen Gleason score was 7 and mean tumor volume was 7 cc. Four patients had a positive surgical margin, which was focal in 3. Of the patients 95% were discharged home within 23 hours. Mean catheterization time was 4.2 days. CONCLUSIONS: Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy is a precise and safe minimally invasive technique of radical retropubic prostatectomy.     

Hernia repair during endoscopic (laparoscopic) radical prostatectomy

We retrospectively reviewed our experience in performing endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE) and totally extraperitoneal (TEP) hernia repair in one procedure to evaluate its feasibility and safety. Based on our experience of 70 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies, a total of 60 patients underwent EERPE. Eight of these had 10 hernias repaired with Prolene mesh. The median total operating time for EERPE was 165 minutes. Mesh placement required an additional 15 minutes for a unilateral hernia and 25 minutes for bilateral hernias. The conversion rate and the reoperation rate were 0%. The median duration of vesical catheterization was 8.3 days. One patient required a blood transfusion. The most common minor complications, occurring in eight patients, were edema and hematoma of the penis. No wound infection occurred. The only major complication was a deep venous thrombosis in one patient. No additional complications developed in the hernioplasty group. We conclude that the extraperitoneal approach for radical prostatectomy allows concomitant inguinal hernia repair with a low morbidity rate and within an acceptable operating time.     

Comparison of length of hospital stay between radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy

PURPOSE: Minimally invasive surgery has been shown to decrease postoperative morbidity and length of stay for a number of surgical procedures. Furthermore, length of stay after open radical prostatectomy has decreased dramatically during the last decade. We examined differences in length of stay between a prospectively evaluated cohort of patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2003 and March 2006, 1,003 radical prostatectomies were performed at our hospital. Data were collected in prospective fashion and a comparison was made between 374 patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy and 629 who underwent robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Length of stay, factors influencing length of stay, readmission rates and unscheduled clinic or emergency room visits were evaluated. Patients in the 2 groups were treated using the same clinical care pathway. RESULTS: Overall 94.3% of patients in the radical retropubic prostatectomy group and 97.5% in the robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group were discharged home on or before postoperative day 1. Mean length of stay in the radical retropubic and robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy groups was 1.25 (median 1.09) and 1.17 days (median 1.03), which was similar and not statistically different (p=0.27). Readmission rates were similar in robot assisted laparoscopic and radical retropubic prostatectomy patients (7% and 5%, respectively, p=0.12). Unscheduled clinic or emergency room visits were the same in the robot assisted laparoscopic and radical retropubic prostatectomy groups (10%, p=0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy or robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy can be treated on the same clinical pathway. A targeted hospital discharge date of postoperative day 1 can be achieved in the majority of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy. Readmission rates or unscheduled hospital visits are necessary in a small percent of patients treated with an early discharge program, of which the majority are caused by ileus.     

Long-term functional and oncological results after retroperitoneal laparoscopic prostatectomy according to a prospective evaluation of 550 patients

The objective of the study was to evaluate the long-term results of retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). From 2001 to 2005, 550 consecutive patients underwent a laparoscopic extraperitoneal prostatectomy in our department. Continence and erectile function were analysed prospectively by a self-administrated questionnaire. Mean operating time was 188 min, mean bladder catheterisation time 5.9 days, mean hospital stay 4.6 days Pathological stage was pT2 in 55.8%, pT3a in 29.6%, pT3b in 9.1% and pT4a in 5.4% tumours. Positive surgical margins were 17.9% for pT2, 44.8% for pT3 tumours and 71.4% for pT4a tumours. Five years survival without biochemical progression was 78.8%. After 24 months of follow-up, diurnal continence rate was 91%, and potency rate was 64% when both neurovascular bundles were preserved, 78.6% when the patients were younger than 60 years. LRP is now a standardised procedure. An extraperitoneal approach combines the advantages of a laparoscopic procedure with those of an extraperitoneal approach.     

Use of optical dilating trocar for initial access during extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: For fully extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, open port placement is standard. This takes quite some time, so with the availability of trocars that combine optical control and radial dilation, an easier and faster technique was tested. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 70 consecutive cases, preperitoneal space creation was attempted with only a 1-cm skin incision, developing further access using an optical dilating trocar with a laparoscope. Open preparation of the subcutaneous fat and incision of the anterior rectus fascia was not necessary. RESULTS: Access was successful on the first attempt in 67 cases. The time from the first skin incision to an established preperitoneal space was <10 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: We believe this technique offers an easier, faster, and safe way to introduce the first port for extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.     

Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Results after 50 cases

INTRODUCTION: After an initial experience using transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy as described by Vallancien and Guillonneau, we developed a pure extraperitoneal approach. This approach seems more comparable to the open technique and avoid potential risks of specific complications due to the transperitoneal approach. We evaluated the perioperative parameters (blood loss, operating time, transfusion rate) and postoperative results (oncological results, continence and potency) after our first 50 cases. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Between September 1999 and September 2000, we performed 50 laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. On average, patients were 63.3 years old (range 47-71), had preoperative mean PSA values of 9.14 ng/ml (1.1-23). Median Gleason score was 6 (4-10) with 2.5 (1-6) positive biopsies for a mean prostate volume of 40 cm(3) (17.5-95.0). Clinical stage was T1, T2a, T2b and T3 in 46.3, 41.5, 9.8 and 2.4% of the cases, respectively. We used a pure extraperitoneal approach and we performed a descending technique starting with the dissection at the bladder neck. The seminal vesicles dissection is comparable to the open approach. RESULTS: 42 extraperitoneal and 8 transperitoneal procedures were performed (2 in the initial experience, 3 because of previous abdominal surgery and 3 because of incidental peritoneal opening). Mean operative time was 317 min, mean blood loss 680 cm(3), transfusion rate of 13%. 1 patient/50 was converted to an open procedure. Pathological stage was pT1a, pT2a, pT2b, pT2c, pT3a and pT3b in 2.2, 8.5, 42.5, 2.2, 34 and 10.6% of cases, respectively. Positive surgical margins were observed in 22% of cases. The potency rate after neurovascular bilateral bundle preservation was 43% at 3 months (n = 7) and 67% at 6 months and (n = 6) without any further treatment. The continence rate (no pad) was 39% at 3 months and 85% at 6 months. Detectable postoperative PSA at 3 month was observed in 2 patients only. Two major complications occurred: one acute transient renal failure one uretrorectal fistula at day 20. CONCLUSIONS: The extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy results seem comparable to transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy or open surgery. This approach is reproducible and seems to avoid the potential risks of intraperitoneal injury. Long-term follow up and comparative series are however necessary to further evaluate these new techniques.     

Early experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy

This article reports our early experience using laparoscopic instruments and techniques when performing radical retropubic prostatectomy through an entirely extraperitoneal endoscopic approach. Two patients with localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate underwent endoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy through an entirely extraperitoneal approach (EERRP). The procedure was evaluated for its efficacy in removing prostate and seminal vesicles and in effecting complete vesicourethral anastomosis. Operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, and pathology were also evaluated. Complete endoscopic removal of the prostate and seminal vesicles was achieved in both patients. Endoscopic reconstruction of the bladder neck with watertight anastamosis was successful in both. Operative time and estimated blood loss improved from 5 h and 45 min and 600 cc, respectively, in patient 1 to 4 h and 400 cc in patient 2. Hospital stay was 2.5 days for both. The early experience for EERRP is encouraging. Further evaluation to standardize technique and determine its efficacy and role in treating prostate cancer is in order. Received: 21 July 1997/Accepted: 11 November 1997     

腹腔镜与开腹手术治疗局限性前列腺癌的比较研究

目的:比较腹腔镜与开腹手术治疗局限性前列腺癌的临床效果。方法:回顾分析经腹膜外途径腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术19例和耻骨后前列腺癌根治术14例的临床资料,比较两种术式的手术时间、术中出血量、术后胃肠功能恢复时间、术后住院天数、围手术期并发症等指标。结果:两组在手术时间和盆腔引流管保留时间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。腹腔镜组比开放组术中出血少、胃肠功能恢复快、术后住院时间短且并发症发生率低(P<0.05)。结论:与耻骨后前列腺癌根治术相比,腹膜外途径腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术具有患者创伤小、术后康复快、并发症发生率低等优点,值得临床推广应用。     

Extraperitoneal standard laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE: To describe our preliminary experience with the extraperitoneal approach for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between February and December 2002, we performed 100 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies by an extraperitoneal approach. RESULTS: Of the procedures, 98 were completed as planned, while conversion to a transperitoneal approach was necessary in 2 patients with previous mesh hernia repair. The mean operative time was 163 minutes. The mean operative blood loss was 375 mL. The transfusion rate was 3%. No rectal, bowel, ureteral, or nervous injury was observed. There were no major complications. There were nine minor complications (four anastomotic leakages, one rectus muscle hematoma, four cases of acute urinary retention). The mean hospital stay was 6.1 days. Mean catheterization lasted 6 days. The pathologic stage was T2a, T2b, T2c, T3a, and T3b in 17%, 22%, 39%, 12%, and 10%, respectively. The mean Gleason score was 7. The margins were positive in 15% of the pT2 and in 35% of the pT3 tumors; 48% of the positive margins occurred in the first 25 cases. The median follow-up was 12 months; 93% of the patients had a serum prostate specific antigen concentration <0.2 ng/mL. No patient has presented with clinical port-site metastasis. All the patients were evaluated by questionnaire sent by mail before and after the surgery. With a median follow-up of 12 months, 86% of the patients were continent (no pads), 7% of the patients used 1 precaution pad, and 7% had need for 1 pad routinely. With a median follow-up of 6 months, among the preoperatively potent patients (IIEF5 >20), the postoperative erection and intercourse rate was 64% and 43% in patients with bilateral and unilateral nerve-bundle preservation, respectively. CONCLUSION: The extraperitoneal technique is a reliable approach for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The choice between a transperitoneal or an extraperitoneal approach depends on the surgeon's experience.     

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using an extraperitoneal approach: Nordwest hospital technique and initial experience in 255 cases

PURPOSE: We report on our modifications in technique and initial experience with 255 extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (eLRP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using significant surgical modifications, our laparoscopic method replicates the steps of the retropubic descending RP. We evaluated 255 consecutive patients who underwent an eLRP with pelvic lymph-node dissection. RESULTS: The mean operative time was 136 minutes (range 84-266 minutes). Because of technical difficulty, the first three patients were converted to open surgery. One major complication, myocardial infarction, and one surgical reintervention in a case of secondary rectourethral fistula after open surgical repair of a laparoscopic rectal injury were observed. The blood transfusion rate was 1.2%. The pathologic stage was pT2a in 56 patients (22%), pT2b in 50 (20%), pT2c in 74 (29%), pT3a in 42 (16%), pT3b in 29 (11%), and pT4 in 3 (2%). Positive margins were found in 7% of patients (13/180) with pT2 tumors and 27% of patients (19/71) with pT3 tumors. The mean catheterization time was 7 days. The continence rates (no pads at all) at 3, 6, and 12 months were 73.7% (146/198), 89.6% (112/125), and 92.7% (38/41), respectively. After a nerve-sparing procedure, the total potency rates at 3 and 6 months were 37.5% (21/56) and 48.8% (21/43), respectively. CONCLUSION: The eLRP seems to be safe with short-term oncologic and functional results at least as favorable as those of open radical prostatectomy and classical transperitoneal LRP. The operative times are shorter, and the complication rate appears to be lower.     

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Frankfurt technique

The robotic technique, which was first introduced in laparoscopic heart surgery, has revolutionized laparoscopic surgery over the last 5 years. In May 2000, our department accomplished the first robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Since that time we have performed more than 118 such procedures and several other laparoscopic operations using the robotic technique. We here summarize our experience in robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy as it has been developed over the past 3 years. Between May 2000 and May 2003, 118 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were operated using the telerobotic da Vinci Surgical System. Operations were performed with a senior surgeon at the console, assisted by an assistant and a nurse at the operating table. Bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection was undertaken as a first step in all patients. In the initial 60 cases, we investigated different laparoscopic approaches. We used transperitoneal as well as extraperitoneal approaches. For dissection of the prostate we used ascending, descending as well as combined techniques. The combined ascending and descending technique via the transperitoneal route was chosen in 30 patients, and via the extraperitoneal route in seven patients. A modification of the descending Montsouris technique was performed in 81 patients. The robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the da Vinci system has been well standardized. After performing more than 100 radical prostatectomies with this system, we conclude that in our hands the Mountsouris technique with only minor adoptions is the most appropriate technique for performing robot assisted radical prostatectomy.     

Extraperitoneal v intraperitoneal robotic prostatectomy: analysis of operative outcomes

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Robotic prostatectomy can be performed either via an extra- or intraperitoneal approach. The extraperitoneal approach has advantages similar to those of an extraperitoneal open radical prostatectomy, but the potential disadvantages of a small working space. We report our experience using both approaches. METHODS: From July 2003 to June 2004, 55 patients underwent a robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. During the first 6 months, 21 prostatectomies were performed using an intraperitoneal approach (group 1); 34 were performed using an extraperitoneal approach (group 2) during the next 6 months. Clinicopathologic parameters and perioperative complications were compared in both groups. All patients were categorized as intent-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Median surgery time was significantly shorter in the extraperitoneal compared with the intraperitoneal approach (3 hours and 34 minutes v 4 hours and 1 minute, respectively, P = 0.017). This was because of the shorter time interval between the skin incision and incision of the endopelvic fascia in the extraperitoneal v the intraperitoneal approach (55 minutes v 74 minutes, respectively, P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in terms of patient age, clinical and pathologic stage, length of hospital stay, and perioperative complications between the two approaches. CONCLUSION: Extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy offers a similar clinical outcome as the intraperitoneal approach. However, the extraperitoneal approach avoids potential bowel injury or complications related to an intraperitoneal urine leak.     

The Window Sign: An Aid in Laparoscopic and Robotic Radical Prostatectomy

Aim:Certain steps of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic radical prostatectomy (RRP), such as identification of seminal vesicles, bladder neck and retroprostatic dissections are technically challenging specially during initial experience. We describe an important land mark : “Window sign”, which helps significantly during the procedure. Methods: The seminal vesicles can be dissected either through the transperitoneal, subperitoneal or extraperitoneal approach. In transperitoneal approach the vas deferens, seminal vesicles and Denonvillier’s fascia are dissected posteriorly, and this plane is re-entered after division of the prostate from the posterior bladder neck, and with division of the Denonvillier’s fascia. The communication between the anteriorly and posteriorly dissected planes in the retrovesical and retroprostatic space is termed “the window.” Alternatively, in the RRP technique, bladder neck is divided anteriorly and posteriorly and vas deferens and seminal vesicle pulled out through this window. We have found that this window in transperitoneal, subperitoneal or extraperitoneal approach whether done during laparoscopic or robotic radical prostatectomy, allows to retract the vas deferens and seminal vesicles to elevate the prostate, facilitates control of the prostatic pedicles, helps in dissection of the prostate and assists in the identification and careful avoidance of the neurovascular bundles. Results: This window sign was identified on the basis of our experience of over 450 cases of laparoscopic and robotic anatomical radical prostatectomies. We have followed this step in all of the cases by either technique. Conclusion: The “window sign” is an important aid while performing laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy. This technique helps the surgeon to achieve both the anatomic and oncologic goals of the nerve sparing, during anatomic radical prostatectomy.     

A centralized comparison of radical perineal and retropubic prostatectomy specimens: is there a difference according to the surgical approach?

PURPOSE: We performed a central review of pathology specimens from radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomies performed by a single surgeon. We determined whether differences exist in the 2 approaches in regard to the ability to obtain adequate surgical margins around the tumor and adequate extracapsular tissue around the prostate, and avoid inadvertent capsular incision. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The review included whole mount prostates from 60 patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy and 40 who underwent radical perineal prostatectomy. The pathologist (N. S. G.) was blinded to the surgical approach. All prostatectomies were consecutive and performed by the same surgeon (H. J. K.). To ensure consistency of the pathological measurements patients were excluded from analysis if they had undergone preoperative androgen ablation or a nerve sparing procedure, leaving 45 retropubic and 27 perineal prostatectomy specimens for further evaluation. Pertinent clinical parameters were assessed and a detailed pathological analysis of each specimen was performed. RESULTS: In the retropubic and perineal groups 78% of the tumors were organ confined (stage pT2) with extracapsular extension (stage pT3) in the majority of the remaining patients. There was no significant difference in the positive margin rate for the retropubic and perineal procedures (16% and 22%, p = 0.53) or for Gleason 6 and 7 tumors only in the 2 groups (10% and 17%, respectively, p = 0.47). The capsular incision rate was 4% in each group. The distance of the tumor from the posterolateral margins and the amount of extracapsular tissue excised were equivalent in each group. Subgroups of patients with a prostate of less than 50 gm. and containing only low grade, low stage neoplasms were also analyzed. Subgroup analysis showed no difference in any variable. CONCLUSIONS: Radical perineal prostatectomy is comparable to radical retropubic prostatectomy for obtaining adequate surgical margins, avoiding inadvertent capsular incisions and excising adequate extracapsular tissue around tumor foci. Additional patient accrual and prostate specific antigen followup would further help validate the similar efficacy of the 2 surgical approaches as treatment for prostate cancer.     

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review of comparative studies

PURPOSE: We compared the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy through a systematic assessment of the literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature databases were searched from 1996 to December 2004 inclusive. Studies comparing transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, extraperitoneal endoscopic radical prostatectomy or robot assisted radical prostatectomy with open radical retropubic prostatectomy or radical perineal prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer were included. Comparisons between different laparoscopic approaches were also included. RESULTS: We identified 30 comparative studies, of which none were randomized controlled trials. There were 21 studies comparing laparoscopic with open prostatectomy with a total of 2,301 and 1,757 patients, respectively, and 9 comparing different laparoscopic approaches with a total of 1,148 patients. In terms of safety there did not appear to be any important differences in the complication rate between laparoscopic and open approaches. However, blood loss and transfusions were lower for laparoscopic approaches. In terms of efficacy operative time was longer for laparoscopic than for open prostatectomy but length of stay and duration of catheterization were shorter. Positive margin rates and recurrence-free survival were similar. Continence and potency were not well reported but they appeared similar for the 2 approaches. There were no important differences between laparoscopic approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is emerging as an alternative to open radical prostatectomy but randomized, controlled trials considering patient relevant outcomes, such as survival, continence and potency, with sufficient followup are required to determine relative safety and efficacy.     

Preperitoneal prosthetic mesh hernioplasty during radical retropubic prostatectomy

PURPOSE: The number of radical retropubic prostatectomies performed in the United States has increased during the last decade. There are 5 to 10% of candidates for radical retropubic prostatectomy who have a detectable inguinal hernia on physical examination. Furthermore, recent data suggest that there is an increased incidence of inguinal hernia after radical retropubic prostatectomy. We evaluated the role of simultaneous inguinal hernioplasty during radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During 575 radical prostatectomy procedures from June 1991 to June 1997, 70 hernioplasties were performed in 48 patients. Retrospective chart review was performed for all men who underwent simultaneous hernia repair. Mean patient age was 60.9 years (range 43 to 73). Polypropylene or polyester fiber prostheses were used for mesh hernioplasty. All repairs were performed using a preperitoneal approach during radical retropubic prostatectomy. RESULTS: There were 35 hernioplasties performed without and 35 with mesh. Mean postoperative followup was 24 months (range 6 to 66). Of the hernias 71% were indirect and 29% were direct. No recurrence was detected after mesh hernioplasty, whereas 5 hernias (14%) recurred in the nonmesh group. In this group 2 men (4%) also had de novo hernias on the contralateral side during followup. All recurrent hernias were diagnosed within 1 year of the initial operation. No patient had wound infection, persistent neuralgia or ischemic orchitis. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous repair of inguinal hernias during radical retropubic prostatectomy is effective and technically feasible. There is convenient access to the preperitoneal space during radical retropubic prostatectomy and hernia repair adds only 5 to 10 minutes of operative time. Mesh repair appears to offer optimized results compared to the nonmesh technique. Despite the use of prosthetic material, no complications were attributable to its application during these genitourinary procedures.