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.     

Comparison of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using match-pair analysis

PURPOSE: Based on the experience of 1000 cases of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, we compared the operative parameters of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches in match-paired patient groups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the charts of 53 consecutive patients who underwent selectively extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy comparing it to 53 match-paired patients treated by transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The patients were matched for age, PSA (ng/ml), prostate volume (g), pathologic stage, Gleason score, presence of pelvic lymph node dissection and type of nerve-sparing technique. Perioperative parameters (operating time, blood donation, complications) and postoperative results (duration and amount of analgesic treatment, catheterization time) as well as oncological (surgical margin status) and functional (continence rate) results were analyzed. RESULTS: Patients were 62.9 +/- 5.5 versus 62.9 +/- 5.4 years old, had 27.5 +/- 3.5 kg/m2 versus 26.7 +/- 2.8 kg/m2 body mass indices in the extraperitoneal and transperitoneal groups, respectively. Preoperative mean PSA and prostate volume were 7.4 +/- 4.6 ng/ml and 41.8 +/- 16.3 g in the extraperitoneal, 7.6 +/- 3.8 ng/ml and 42.0 +/- 14.8 g in the transperitoneal group. Pathologic stages were T2a in 12 vs. 13, T2b in 21 vs. 20, T2c in 7 vs. 8, T3a in 11 vs. 10 and T3b in 2 vs. 2 patients for both groups. Overall 211.8 vs. 197.1 minutes mean operative time (p = 0.328) and 21.9 +/- 15.4 mg vs. 26.3 +/- 15.8 mg narcotic analgesic requirements (p = 0.111) did not differ significantly in both groups. However, mean operating time was significantly longer in the extraperitoneal group when performing pelvic lymphadenectomy (244.5 vs. 209.6 minutes, p = 0.017). There was no statistical difference of complication rate (4% vs. 2%) and median catheter time (7 vs. 7 days), positive surgical margins (22.6% vs. 20.7%) and 12 months continence (86.7% vs. 84.9%). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between the extraperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches using the Heilbronn technique regarding all important parameters. In addition to the preference and experience of the individual surgeon, previous abdominal surgery, gross obesity and requirement of simultaneous inguinal hernia repair may be considered as selective indications for extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.     

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.     

机器人辅助腹腔镜经腹腔与腹膜外单孔前列腺癌根治术围手术期护理的对比研究

目的:回顾性分析机器人辅助腹腔镜经腹腔与经腹膜外单孔前列腺癌根治术治疗前列腺癌的围手术期护理的疗效,探讨后者的护理优势。方法:回顾性分析四川省人民医院机器人微创中心2019年7月—2020年6月接受机器人辅助腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术的患者142例,其中行机器人辅助腹腔镜经腹腔前列腺癌根治术82例,行机器人辅助腹腔镜经腹膜外单孔前列腺癌根治术60例,所有手术均为同一术者完成。术后随访比较两组患者的手术切口护理情况、引流管拔除时间、疼痛评分、术后住院天数、术后排气时间、尿管留置时间、控尿训练的效果、切口愈合情况及美观度、术后随访患者满意度。结果:142例手术均在机器人辅助腹腔镜下顺利完成,无中转开放。经腹腔组与经腹膜外单孔两组手术切口护理切口感染3例(3.7%)、1例(1.7%),差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);引流管拔除时间分别为4.8(3~13)d和2.8(1~10)d,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);术后疼痛评分分别为2.1(1~9)分和1.9(1~8)分,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后住院天数分别为9.3(8.0~16.0)d和8.4(7.0~13.0)d,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后排气时间分别为1.3(0.65~3.0)d和3.4(2.0~7.0)d,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);术后尿管留置时间分别为9.0(7.0~21.0)d和6.0(4.0~8.0)d,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组术后即刻、3个月、6个月尿控例数分别为8例(9.8%)、51例(62.2%)、62例(75.6%)和17例(28.3%)、43例(71.7%)、54例(90.0%),差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组总切口长度分别为12.1(10.4~13.4)cm和5.6(5.0~6.0)cm,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);术后满意度分别为90%和100%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:机器人辅助腹腔镜腹膜外单孔前列腺癌根治术围手术期护理具有恢复时间更短、尿控缓解率更高、切口美观整洁、术后满意度更高的优势,更有利于术后护理工作的开展。     

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.     

Comparison of early oncologic results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach

PURPOSE: Compare the early oncological results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy performed by either an extraperitoneal or a transperitoneal approach. METHODS: 330 consecutive men underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer, the first 165 by transperitoneal approach, and the last 165 by extraperitoneal approach. Clinical stage, serum PSA, Gleason score of biopsy were recorded, as well as operating time, surgical and medical complications, blood loss, length of hospital stay and catheterization time. The weight of the specimen, pathological stage (1997 TNM classification) and status of the surgical margins were noted. The Fisher test as well as the chi2-test were used for statistical analysis. Differences were considered significant when p < 0.05. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of preoperative characteristics except for Gleason score of the biopsies which was higher in the extraperitoneal group (p < 0.0001). The operating time was longer with the transperitoneal approach (248.5 min vs. 220.0 min, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in transfusion rate (1.2% vs. 5.4%, transperitoneal vs. extraperitoneal, respectively, p = 0.6). There was no difference in hospital stay, medical and surgical complications. Respectively, in the transperitoneal and extraperitoneal groups, there were 108 and 88 pT2 tumors. There were no differences in terms of positive surgical margins between the two groups, 23% and 29.7% (p = 0.21) overall, 13.0% and 17.0% (p = 0.42) in pT2 tumors and 43.6% and 44.7% (p = 0.99) in pT3 tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Extraperitoneal approach offers the same early oncological results as transperitoneal approach with a shorter operative time.     

Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: initial experience after 70 procedures

PURPOSE: After our initial experience with 70 transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomies we developed a totally extraperitoneal retropubic approach to radical prostatectomy using laparoscopic instruments. We report our initial experience with 70 endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 70 patients underwent endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. Mean patient age was 63.4 years (range 49 to 76). Mean preoperative prostate specific antigen was 12.48 ng./ml. (range 1.4 to 50.7). There were no specific selection criteria for the procedure. The steps of the procedure are preparation of the preperitoneal space with the help of a balloon trocar, trocar placement (a 3 x 5 and a 2 x 12 mm. port), pelvic lymph node dissection, exposure of the prostate and the bladder neck, incision of the endopelvic fascia, ligation of Santorini's plexus, bladder neck dissection, mobilization of the seminal vesicles, incision of Denonvilliers' fascia, sectioning of the prostatic pedicles with or without preservation of the neurovascular bundles, dissection of Santorini's plexus and apex, urethrovesical anastomosis with 7 to 9 interrupted sutures and removal of the specimen via an extraction bag. During the 70 endoscopic prostatectomies 11 hernia defects were treated in 9 patients concomitantly. RESULTS: There was no conversions and no re-interventions. Mean operative time was 155 minutes (range 90 to 260). One patient required transfusion with 2 units of blood cells. Pathological stage was pT2a in 19 patients, pT2b in 14, pT3a in 25, pT3b in 9 and pT4 in 3. Positive surgical margins were found in 2 of the 33 patients (6.1%) with pT2 tumors and in 13 of the 37 (35.1%) with pT3 and pT4 tumors. Postoperatively edema and hematoma of the penis in 10 cases was treated conservatively. Furthermore, 4 patients had asymptomatic lymphoceles, 1 required lymphocele drainage and 2 had partial obturator nerve paralysis, which resolved spontaneously. In 1 patient deep venous thrombosis developed. CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary results of this series are promising. Operative and perioperative morbidity was low. Functional results and oncological control were similar to the results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The data demonstrate that endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy can be performed with efficacy and results equal to those of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, while providing the benefits of a totally extraperitoneal approach. Therefore, totally endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy represents a technical improvement of laparoscopic technique because it completely obviates intra-abdominal complications and combines the advantages of minimally invasive laparoscopy and the retropubic open approach.     

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.     

Oncologic outcome and continence recovery after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: 3 years' follow-up in a "second generation center"

OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in major centers guarantees oncologic and functional results equal to open procedures. In our institution this operation was introduced in 2001 after an adequate training in laparoscopic surgery. We report the oncologic and functional results after 3 years of experience. METHODS: We considered our first 150 patients that had undergone transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The following parameters were prospectively collected and analyzed: pathological findings, surgical margins, surgical time, blood loss, hospital stay, catheterization, complications, oncologic follow-up and continence. RESULTS: Single positive surgical margins were observed in 26 patients (17.3%) and multiple positive margins in 15 patients (10%). The rates of positive margins in organ confined tumors (pT2a/b) were 11.3%. Preoperative PSA>10 ng/ml (Chi-square p<0.01), pathological stage>pT2 (Chi-square p<0.001) and Gleason score>6 (Chi-square p<0.01) were significantly correlated with positive margins. Major complications occurred in 16 patients (10.7%). The total recurrence rate is 11.7%. The continence rate at 12 months is 91.7%.with 44.3% of patients completely continent at the moment of catheter removal. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in now a well codified operation that, after an adequate training, could be learned and reproduced safely. Actually this is our first choice surgical approach in patients with localized prostate cancer.     

Complications, urinary continence, and oncologic outcome of 1000 laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomies-experience at the Charité Hospital Berlin, Campus Mitte

OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomy (LRP) is an alternative to open radical prostatectomy, but data based on large populations are not frequently available. This study was initiated to evaluate LRP with regard to complications, urinary continence, and oncologic outcome. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 1000 consecutive patients with a mean age of 62 yr (SD+/-6 yr) and clinically localized prostate cancer. Between May 1999 and October 2004, all 1000 patients underwent LRP performed by eight urologists at one institution (Charité Hospital Berlin, Campus Mitte). The review procedure was based on complete patient documents (hospital stay, n=1000) and an interview by one physician. Histopathologic results, intraoperative and early and late complications, continence rate, and time to first PSA increase (n=952) were recorded. Erectile function was not part of this review. Twenty-two patients received neoadjuvant treatment for >2 mo. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 28.8 mo (range: 7.2 to 69.7). Intraoperative and early complications occurred in 11.8% of patients. In 77.6% the urethrovesical anastomosis tested by cystography at day 5 or 6 after LRP was intact; 76% used none or not more than one pad per 24h. The overall PSA-free survival was more than 90% for pT2, 80.3% for pT3a, and 72.4% for pT3b until July 2005. The mortality rate was 0.3%. CONCLUSIONS: In the present series of 1000 patients, a specific disadvantage of LRP compared with the open approach, as reported in the literature, could not be shown. On the basis of short-term follow-up data, our retrospective evaluation confirms that LRP provides satisfactory results. We believe that laparoscopic radical prostatectomy can be the technique of choice in the future.     

经腹与经腹膜外腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术的效果比较

目的 比较经腹与经腹膜外途径腹腔镜下手术治疗前列腺癌的临床效果.方法前列腺癌患者33例行腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术,其中经腹21例,经腹膜外12例.对2组患者手术时间、术中出血量、术中并发症、肠功能恢复时间、术后住院时间、术后并发症等资料进行比较分析.结果 33例手术均成功.经腹与经腹膜外2组手术时间分别为(299±46)和(309±64)min,出血量分别为(618±448)和(677±469)ml,2组比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).经腹组术中发生大出血3例、膀胱损伤2例、单侧输尿管损伤1例,经腹膜外组术中发生大出血1例、闭孔神经损伤1例、腹膜损伤1例、膀胱三角损伤1例.2组术后留置导尿时间分别为(14.6±3.8)和(12.3±2.9)d,肠功能恢复时间分别为(2.7±0.7)和(2.1±0.5)d,术后住院时间分别为(17.0±3.6)d和(11.2±3.5)d,2组比较差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术经腹膜外比经腹途径具有视野清晰、对腹腔器官影响小、术后恢复快、术后住院短等优点.     

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in patients following transurethral resection of the prostate

OBJECTIVES: Previous transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) was reported to impose difficulties during open radical prostatectomy. We describe our experience in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) following transurethral resection of the prostate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The series included 35 patients: 22 patients underwent transperitoneal LRP (tpLRP) and 13 underwent extraperitoneal LRP (epLRP). The minimal interval between TURP and laparoscopy was 3 months. Patients' charts were reviewed for their preoperative characteristics, intraoperative difficulties and complications, and outcome. RESULTS: Patients' mean age was 67.5+/-4.4 years. 12 patients were cT1a,b and 23 patients were cT1c/T2. Twenty-two patients underwent tpLRP and 13 underwent epLRP. No statistical difference was found between the preoperative characteristics and the pathological results of cT1a,b vs. T1c/cT2 patients, or tpLRP vs. epLRP patients. Thirty-three procedures were completed laparoscopically and 2 were converted to open surgery. Perioperative complications included two leaking anastomoses, prolonged lymph drainage in 1 case, atelectasis (n=1) and duodenal ulcer (n=1). Twelve positive margins were noted, half of them in pT2 tumors. The mean follow-up was 28.5 months. Twenty-five of 35 patients had more than 12 months of follow-up. Among them 19 patients were completely continent (76%) and 6 (24%), reported mild stress incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: Although LRP following TURP is sometimes more technically difficult, simple modifications in the operative strategy help facilitate surgery. LRP following TURP favorably compares to open radical prostatectomy after TURP and laparoscopy in non-TURP patients.     

A matched-pair comparison between bilateral intrafascial and interfascial nerve-sparing techniques in extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

The aim of this study was to validate the advantages of the intrafascial nerve-sparing technique compared with the interfascial nerve-sparing technique in extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. From March 2010 to August 2011, 65 patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) underwent bilateral intrafascial nerve-sparing extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. These patients were matched in a 1∶2 ratio to 130 patients with localized PCa who had undergone bilateral interfascial nerve-sparing extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy between January 2008 and August 2011. Operative data and oncological and functional results of both groups were compared. There was no difference in operative data, pathological stages and overall rates of positive surgical margins between the groups. There were 9 and 13 patients lost to follow-up in the intrafascial group and interfascial group, respectively. The intrafascial technique provided earlier recovery of continence at both 3 and 6 months than the interfascial technique. Equal results in terms of continence were found in both groups at 12 months. Better rates of potency at 6 months and 12 months were found in younger patients (age ≤65 years) and overall patients who had undergone the intrafascial nerve-sparing extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Biochemical progression-free survival rates 1 year postoperatively were similar in both groups. Using strict indications, compared with the interfascial nerve-sparing technique, the intrafascial technique provided similar operative outcomes and short-term oncological results, quicker recovery of continence and better potency. The intrafascial nerve-sparing technique is recommended as a preferred approach for young PCa patients who are clinical stages cT1 to cT2a and have normal preoperative potency.     

Nerve-sparing endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: University of Leipzig technique

PURPOSE: To describe the various operative steps as well as the functional and oncologic results of nerve-sparing endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (nsEERP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty preoperatively potent patients have been treated with bilateral nsEERPE in our department. The average age of the patients was 60.3 years (range 41-74 years), and the mean prostate weight was 48.6 g (range 24-117 g). RESULTS: The mean operative time was 136 minutes (range 75-210 minutes). No conversions to open surgery were necessary. The mean catheterization time was 5.7 days (range 4-20 days). Lymphadenectomy was performed in 26 patients. The pathologic stages were pT2 in 78 and pT3 in 42 patients. Positive margins were detected in 7.7% (N = 6) and 19% (N = 8) of the patients with pT2 and pT3 disease, respectively. Erections sufficient for intercourse were reported in interviews with 58 patients (48.3%) during the 6-month follow-up period. Follow-up of at least 1 year is deemed necessary to draw more definite conclusions about erectile function. One week postoperatively, 32 patients (26.7%) required a maximum of 1 pad, 59 patients (49.2%) 2 or 3 pads, and 29 patients (24.2%) more than 3 pads per day because of incontinence, whereas 3 and 6 months after the procedure, 98 (82%) and 106 (88%) of the patients required a maximum of 1 pad, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that nsEERPE can be performed with equal efficacy and preliminary results similar to those of standard open radical prostatectomy as well as transperitoneal laparoscopic prostatectomy while completely avoiding intraperitoneal complications.     

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.     

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy--the experience of the German Laparoscopic Working Group

PURPOSE: To present the current status of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in Germany, Austria and Switzerland with respect to transferability, learning curve, and outcome. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The data of 5824 patients who underwent LRP in 18 centers by 50 urologists from March 1999 to August 2004 were analyzed retrospectively. Three centers performed more than 500, and six more than 250 cases. A transperitoneal descending technique with was used in 2701, a transperitoneal ascending in 1234, an extraperitoneal descending in 1814, and an extraperitoneal ascending modification in 75 cases. Specimen showed pT2 in 3535, pT3a in 1555, pT3b in 623, and pT4 in 111 cases. RESULTS: Mean operating time averaged 211 (131-292) minutes, with shorter duration of the extraperitoneal descending technique. Conversion to open surgery averaged 2.4 (0-14.1) %. Re-intervention rate amounted to 2.7 (0.3-7.7) %. Complication rate averaged 8.9 (1.8-10.8) % including bleeding (0.3-2.5%) and rectal lesion (1.5-2.5%). The rate of positive margins was 10.6 (3.2-18) % for pT2- and 32.7 (20-38.5) % for pT3a-tumors Continence after 12 months was 84.9 (72-94) %. Data about potency (7 centers) revealed 52.5 (35-67) % full erections following bilateral nerve preservation. 5 year-PSA recurrence rate (3 centers) was 8.6 (4-15.3) % for pT2-tumors and 17.5 (15-20.6) % for pT3a-stages. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm the efficacy of the training program with safe transfer of LRP (i.e. low complication rate), however including all known problems of a retrospective study.     

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Only at centers of expertise

ObjectivesTo present and evaluate our experience and initial results in radical laparoscopic prostatectomy which we have been using for two and an half years in our General Hospital (covering a total population of 200.000 inhabitants).Material and MethodsBetween December 2002 and August 2005, were selected 26 patients for radical laparoscopic prostatectomy (25 transperitoneal and 1 extraperitoneal). Mean age was 62.3 ± 5.3 years (range 52-69). Mean PSA level was 9.16 ± 4.20 ng/mL (range 5.26 to 24.3). Pre-operative classification was T1c in 10 patients (38.4%), T2a in 8 (30.8%) and T2b in 8. Mean Gleason Score was 6 ± 0.8 (range 4-7). Three patients had undergone preoperatively neo-adjuvant hormonal blockage (11.5%). Simultaneous bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy was performed in two patients. In no case did we consider a nerve sparing approach.ResultsThe procedure was accomplished in 20 patients. Mean follow-up was 12.4 ± 8.6 months (range 3 - 34). There was no perioperative mortality. Conversion to open surgery was required six times in the ten first cases but not thereafter. Mean operating time for the whole series was 303 ± 95 minutes (range 150-540) but with a distinct difference between the first fourteen and the last six cases: 332 ± 92,58 versus 236.6 ± 66.5 (p<0.02). Mean blood loss was 90.25 ± 46.5 ml. There were early postoperative complications in 4 patients (15.38%). Final pathological staging was: T2a in three patients (15%), T2b (50%) in 10, T3a (15%) in three and T3b (20%) in four. Positive margins were found in three cases (11.5%): T2b, T3a and T3b. Mean hospitalisation time was 4.7 ± 3.1 days. Provided there was no urinary leakage, the urinary catheter was removed at 12.7 ± 2.7 days. Full continence at three months was achieved in 17 of the patients (85%) who had undergone the full laparoscopic procedure.ConclusionsOur previous experience in other major laparoscopic procedures has allowed us to perform radical laparoscopic prostatectomy with a fast learning curve even in a setting of a relatively low population. Initial long term results seem similar to those achieved with conventional surgery.     

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: minimum 3-year follow-up of the first 100 patients in the UK

OBJECTIVE: To present the results of the first 100 patients in the UK treated by laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and with at least 3 years of follow-up, as LRP continues to develop as a minimally invasive alternative to open radical prostatectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 100 patients (mean age 62 years, range 52-72) had a transperitoneal LRP by one surgeon during a 25-month period from 2000 to 2002. Most (78%) patients had a prostate-specific antigen level of 4-10 ng/mL, clinical stage T1 disease (62%), and Gleason 6 on biopsy (50%). Sixty-four patients had unilateral or bilateral nerve preservation and 14 had pelvic lymphadenectomy. RESULTS: The mean operative duration was 245 min, with a 1% conversion rate. Three patients received a blood transfusion and three had major complications, including a rectal injury. The positive margin rate was 16% and correlated with pathological variables. At > or = 3 years of follow-up (mean 3.7) the overall survival rate was 99% and the biochemical progression-free survival was 88% in all patients, at 90% for pT2 and 75% for pT3. Ninety patients used 0-1 pads/day (84% pad-free) and 60 undergoing nerve preservation retained erectile function. CONCLUSION: This series includes the first results for LRP with a > or = 3-year follow-up reported from the UK, with oncological control and morbidity comparable to those in previously published open and laparoscopic series. The history of open radical prostatectomy suggests that as the technique of LRP develops and experience with it increases, these results are likely to improve.     

Early recovery of urinary continence after laparoscopic versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: evaluation of preoperative erectile function and nerve-sparing procedure as predictors

The aim of this study was to evaluate preoperative erectile function and attempted nerve-sparing procedure as predictors for early recovery of urinary continence after retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Patients were divided into two groups according to surgical approach (retropubic or laparoscopic) and learning curve for laparoscopic approach: group 1—retropubic approach (37 patients operated on from April 2000 to June 2006), group 2—laparoscopic approach (109 patients operated on from April 2003 to June 2006). We assessed state of urinary continence at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after removal of the urinary catheter. Overall rates of urinary continence were 18%, 49%, 68%, and 80% at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Between groups 1 and 2, no statistically significant differences in recovery of urinary continence were evident, being 27% versus 15% at 1 month, 54% versus 47% at 3 months, 77% versus 65% at 6 months, and 91% versus 77% at 12 months in groups 1 and 2, respectively. An attempted nerve-sparing procedure (one or both neurovascular bundles) was statistically associated with urinary continence at 3 month, and International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5) score (≥14) was identified as a significant factor predicting urinary continence at 6 months after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Younger age tended to result in early recovery of urinary continence after retropubic radical prostatectomy.