Comparison of Early Oncologic Results of Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy by Extraperitoneal versus Transperitoneal Approach

Incidence of Rectal Injury After Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Context

Rectal injury (RI) is a dreaded complication after radical prostatectomy (RP), increasing the risk of early postoperative complications, such as bleeding and severe infection/sepsis, and late sequelae, such as a rectourethral fistula (RUF). Considering its traditionally low incidence, uncertainty remains as to predisposing risk factors and management.

Objective

To examine the incidence of RI after RP in contemporary series and to propose a pragmatic algorithm for its management.

Evidence acquisition

A systematic literature search was performed using the Medline and Scopus databases. Studies reporting data on RI incidence were selected. Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the differential incidence by age, surgical approach, salvage RP after radiation therapy, and previous benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)-related surgery.

Evidence synthesis

Eighty-eight, mostly retrospective noncomparative, studies were selected. The meta-analysis obtained a pooled RI incidence of 0.58% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.73) in contemporary series with significant across-study heterogeneity (I² = 100%, p < 0.00001). The highest RI incidence was found in patients undergoing open RP (1.25%; 95% CI 0.66-2.38) and laparoscopic RP (1.25%; 95% CI 0.75-2.08) followed by perineal RP (0.19%; 95% CI 0-276.95) and robotic RP (0.08%; 95% CI 0.02-0.31). Age ≥60 yr (0.56%; 95% CI 0.37-06) and salvage RP after radiation therapy (6.01%; 95% CI 3.99-9.05), but not previous BPH-related surgery (4.08%, 95% CI 0.92-18.20), were also associated with an increased RI incidence. Intraoperative versus postoperative RI detection was associated with a significantly decreased risk of severe postoperative complications (such as sepsis and bleeding) and subsequent formation of a RUF.

Conclusions

RI is a rare, but potentially devastating, complication following RP. RI incidence was higher in patients ≥60 yr of age, and in those who underwent open/laparoscopic approach or salvage RP after radiation therapy. Intraoperative RI detection and repair apparently constitute the single most critical step to significantly decrease the risk of major postoperative complications and subsequent RUF formation. Conversely, intraoperatively undetected RI can lead more often to severe infective complications and RUF, the management of which remains poorly standardised and requires complex procedures.

Patient summary

Accidental rectum tear is a rare, but potentially devastating, complication in men undergoing prostate removal for cancer. It occurs more often in patients aged 60 yr or older as well as in those who underwent prostate removal via an open/laparoscopic approach and/or prostate removal after radiation therapy for recurrent disease. Prompt identification and repair of this condition during the initial operation are the key to reduce further complications such as the formation of an abnormal opening between the rectum and the urinary tract.

Comparison of Perioperative, Functional, and Oncological Outcomes of Transperitoneal and Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy

Purpose

This study aimed to compare the oncological, functional, and perioperative outcomes of localized and locally advanced prostate cancer treated with intraperitoneal or extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).

Methods

From April, 2008, through December, 2020, 266 patients underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, 168 cases with an extraperitoneal approach (E-LRP) and 98 cases using a transperitoneal approach (T-LRP). The clinical, perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes were collected and compared between these groups. At the 3-, 12- and 24-monthfollow-ups, the functional outcomes tested were urinary function (urinary domain of EPIC) and sexual function (sexual domain of EPIC). The oncological outcomes of biochemical recurrence, biochemical recurrence-free survival, and positive surgical margin status were evaluated. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to identify factors predictive for biochemical recurrence. All statistical analyses used the R program.

Results

The patient characteristics were similar between the E-LRP and T-LRP groups except for higher prostatic-specific antigen (PSA) in the T-LRP group. The T-LRP had lower overall operative time (222.5 min vs. 290 min, p 0.001), decreased blood loss (400 ml vs. 800 ml, p < 0.001), and shorter hospital stays (4 days vs. 7 days, p < 0.001) compared to the E-LRP. Early sexual intercourse with penetration at 3 months was higher in the T-LRP group (36.7% vs. 15.5%, p 0.001). Urinary continence (no pads) was not different between the T-LRP and E-LRP groups at 3 and 24 months after surgery but higher in the E-LRP group at 12 months (1% vs. 3%; p=0.419, 85.1 vs. 83.7%; p=0.889, 47.4% vs. 34.6%; p=0.028, respectively). The EPIC questionnaire was used to assess functional outcomes at 3, 12, and 24 months after surgery and found that urinary function was significantly higher in the T-LRP group at 3 and 12 months (p < 0.001) but did not show a difference at 24 months (p=0.734), and sexual function scores were higher in the T-LRP group at 12 and 24 months (p=0.001). The positive surgical margin rate was higher in the E-LRP (38.7% vs. 21.4%; p=0.006). The BCR rate was not different between the groups (36.3% in the E-LRP group and 27.6% in the E-LRP group; p=0.184).

Conclusion

Transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (T-LRP) was found to be superior to extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (E-LRP) in perioperative outcomes such as decreased operative time, decreased blood loss, shorter hospital stay, lower positive surgical margin, and improved early sexual intercourse and sexual function. The urinary functional outcome was better in the T-LRP group at 3 and 12 months. These findings support the use of transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, as our study patients exhibited significant benefits from this procedure.

Predictors of Prolonged Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy and the Creation of a Scoring System for the Duration

Purpose

To identify the relevant factors, and create and validate a predictive scoring system for the duration of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively analyzed clinicopathological data from 436 patients who underwent LRP between January 2014 and January 2019, of whom 304 cases were used as a model creation group and 132 were used as a validation group. Uni/multivariate linear regression analysis was performed to determine the predictors of the duration of the procedure and a novel scoring system was created using these predictors. External validation of the scoring system was performed. The Hosmer–Lemeshow test was used to determine the goodness-of-fit of the model and calibration plots were created for visual assessment.

Results

“Prolonged duration” was defined as a duration of the procedure that was longer than the mean (>150 min) duration. Multivariate analysis showed that body mass index (BMI), prostate volume, intravesicular protrusion of the prostate (IPP), the ratio of the cross-sectional areas of the prostate and the Retzius space (P/R), pelvic lymph node dissection, and neurovascular bundle (NVB) preservation were significant predictors of prolonged duration. A scoring system that included these six parameters was created and the area under the curve achieved during receiver operating characteristic analysis using this scoring system was 0.874 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.836–0.913). The Hosmer–Lemeshow test showed that the scoring system was well calibrated (X²=5.339, P=0.376). The external validation showed that the model had high predictive accuracy (AUC=0.835, 95% CI: 0.764–0.906) and goodness-of-fit (X²=4.401, P=0.493).

Conclusion

The following factors were significantly associated with prolonged duration of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: BMI, prostate volume, IPP, P/R, pelvic lymph node dissection, and NVB preservation. The novel scoring system created can be used to accurately predict the duration of the procedure, assess the difficulty of surgery, and improve perioperative efficiency.

Clavien System Classification of Complications Developed following Laparoscopic Urological Operations Applied in our Clinic

Objectives:

We analyzed the complications of laparoscopic surgery using Clavien system classification on 396 urological procedures performed at our institution between 2005-2009.

Methods:

A retrospective analysis was performed, focusing on complications associated with 396 laparoscopic surgeries performed between 2005 and 2009, which included radical and simple nephrectomy (n=188), partial nephrectomy (n=29), pyeloplasty (n=78), sacrocolpopexy (n=16) and radical prostatectomy (n=85). Complication data were tabulated according to the case number, procedure type, patient age, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score (ASA), Clavien classification system and annual complication rate during this study. Statistical analysis was performed with Fisher’s exact and chi-square tests.

Results:

A total of 75 patients had complications during the study period. Thus, the total postoperative complication rate was 18.9%. When sub-stratified to various surgical procedures, complication rates were: laparoscopic radical and simple nephrectomy (11.1%), laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (37.9%), laparoscopic pyeloplasty (15.3%), laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (18.7%) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (32.9%). When the complications were classified according to Clavien Classification System stage 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, complication rate was observed in 11.6%, 13.8%, 1.2%, 1%, and 0% of patients, respectively. A correlation was not identified between ASA score and complication rate (p=0.02).

Conclusion:

The data presented here would enable us to compare our complication rates objectively with world literature.

A comparison of perioperative outcome between robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience of a single institution

PURPOSE

To compare perioperative and pathological results in different approaches of robotic or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 206 patients diagnosed with pros¬tate cancer (PC) from June 2016 to October 2017 in the First Affiliated Hospital of Nan¬jing Medical University. A total of 132 cases underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RLRP) including 54 patients on transperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (Tp-RLRP) and 78 on extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (Ep-RLRP). Meanwhile, 74 patients performed with extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (Ep-LPR) were also included. Peri¬operative and pathological data were compared among these groups.

RESULTS

All operations were completed without conversion. There was no signifi¬cant difference in basic and pathological characteristics of patients between each two groups. In Tp-RLRP vs. Ep-RLRP: Significant differences were found in the comparison in to¬tal operation time [235.98 ± 59.16 vs. 180.45 ± 50.27 min, P = 0.00], estimated blood loss (EBL) [399.07 ± 519.57 vs. 254.49 ± 308.05 mL, P = 0.0473], postoperative pelvic drainage time [5.37 ± 2.33 vs. 4.24 ± 3.08 d, P = 0.0237] and postoperative length of stay [8.15 ± 3.30 vs. 6.49 ± 3.49 d, P = 0.0068] while no significant differences were detected in other variables. In Ep-RLRP vs. Ep-LPR: Longer total operation time was observed in Ep-RLRP when compared to Ep-LPR [180.45 ± 50.27 vs. 143.80 ± 33.13 min, P = 0.000]. No significant differences were observed in other variables.

CONCLUSION

In RLRP, Ep-RLRP was proved a safe and effective approach based on the perioperative results compared to Tp-RLRP. Ep-RLRP and Ep-LPR provides equivalent perioperative and pathological outcomes.

Critical appraisal of literature comparing minimally invasive extraperitoneal and transperitoneal radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

To systematically review studies comparing extraperitoneal (E-RP) and transperitoneal minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (T-RP).

Methods

The systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in September 2015. Several databases were searched including Medline and Scopus. Only studies comparing E-RP and T-RP (either laparoscopic or robot-assisted approach) were evaluated. The follow-up of the included patients had to be ≥6 months.

Results

In all, 1256 records were identified after the initial database search. Of these 20 studies (2580 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The hospital stay was significantly lower in the E-RP cohort, with a mean difference of −0.30 days (95% confidence interval [CI] −0.35, −0.24) for the laparoscopic group and 1.09 days (95% CI −1.47, −0.70) for the robotic group (P < 0.001). Early continence rates favoured the E-RP group, although this was statistically significant only in the laparoscopic group (odds ratio [OR] 2.52, 95% CI 1.72, 3.70; P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the E-RP and T-RP cohorts for 12-month continence rates for both the laparoscopic (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.89, 2.69; P = 0.12) and robotic groups (OR 3.03, 95% CI 0.54, 16.85; P = 0.21). The overall complication and ileus rates were significantly lower in the E-RP cohort for both the laparoscopic and robotic groups. The symptomatic lymphocele rate favoured the T-RP cohort, although this was statistically significant only in the laparoscopic group (OR 8.69, 95% CI 1.60, 47.17; P = 0.01).

Conclusion

This review suggests that the extraperitoneal approach is associated with a shorter hospital stay, lower overall complication rate, and earlier return to continence when compared to the transperitoneal approach. The transperitoneal approach has a lower lymphocele rate.

Laparoscopic Surgery in Urologic Oncology

Background

Techniques in genitourinary oncologic surgery have evolved over the past several years, shifting from traditional open approaches toward minimally invasive routes by laparoscopy.

Methods

We reviewed the literature on laparoscopic surgery for genitourinary cancer, with emphasis on contemporary indications, complications, and oncologic outcome of laparoscopic surgery for urologic malignancies.

Results

All urologic oncology procedures have been performed laparoscopically. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy is becoming the preferred approach for managing kidney cancer. The initial experience with nephroureterectomy is encouraging. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is rapidly becoming the standard in Europe and is the procedure of choice in many centers in the United States.

Conclusions

When following the open oncologic principles for the surgical treatment of malignancies, laparoscopy offers similar oncologic clinical outcomes, less morbidity, improved operative precision, and reduced convalescence time.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by the transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal procedure

Worldwide, prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common malignancy in males. We undertook a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a transperitoneal (TLRP) approach, versus that of an extraperitoneal (ELRP) approach, for treatment of localized PCa. A comprehensive literature search retrieved 14 publications, with a total of 1715 patients. Meta-analysis of these studies showed that an ELRP approach was associated with a significantly shorter postoperative catheterization time (MD: 1.99; 95% CI: 0.52 to 3.54; P = 0.008), less blood transfusion rate (OR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.03 to 4.06; P = 0.04), shorter intestinal function recovery time (MD: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.09; P < 0.0001) and shorter hospitalization days (MD: 2.71; 95% CI: 1.03 to 4.39; P = 0.002). In addition, our results showed no statistically significant differences between the two groups in operation time (MD: 19.39; 95% CI: −6.67 to 45.44; P = 0.014), intraoperative blood loss (MD: 4.89; 95% CI: −105.00 to 114.79; P = 0.93) and total complication rate (RR: 1.22; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.74; P = 0.27). In summary, our meta-analysis showed that ELRP is likely to be a safe and feasible alternative for localized PCa patients compared with TLRP.

[Positive surgical margin status after minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: a multicenter study]

UNLABELLED: The aim of our study is to evaluate the status of positive margins (PSMs) comparing their incidence between aparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in centers with medium case-load (50-150 cases/year). We also analyzed the correlations between surgical technique, nerve-sparing approach (NS), and incidence of PSMs, stratifying our results by pathological stage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed 1992 patients who underwent RP in various urologic centers. We evaluated the incidence of PSMs, and then we compared the stage-related incidence of PSMs, for both the techniques.

RESULTS

We did not find a statistically significant difference between the two surgical modalities in the study regarding the overall incidence of PSMs.

CONCLUSIONS

In our retrospective study, we did not find any difference in terms of PSMs in RARP versus LRP. Our PSMs were not negligible, particularly in pT3 stages, compared with high-volume centers; surgical experience and patients' selection can be a possible explanation.

Evolution of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): technique and outcome

Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE) is a well-established and standardized technique for treating patients with localized prostate cancer. Nevertheless, the procedure is continuously being refined with the expansion of anatomical knowledge. The development of a nerve-sparing approach and improvements in currently used equipment are expected to yield better results in cosmesis and convalescence without sacrificing the procedure's established benefits in terms of potency, continence and oncological management. In this study, the technique and its evolution are presented in detail, along with an analysis of its clinical efficacy. We also consult the literature to compare EERPE to transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and we also discuss new technical advancements regarding the use of robotic assistance during EERPE.

Comparison of oncological results, functional outcomes, and complications for transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a single surgeon's experience

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To compare the oncologic results, functional outcomes, and complications of transperitoneal (TP) and extraperitoneal (EP) robotic radical prostatectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From June 2007 to April 2009, 105 patients underwent TP robotic radical prostatectomy, and 155 patients underwent EP robotic radical prostatectomy. Clinicopathological and perioperative data were compared between the two groups. Postoperative complications and functional outcomes including potency and incontinence were assessed.

RESULTS

Patient demographics were similar in the TP and EP groups. No significant differences in positive surgical margins were noted between the groups. The total operative time, number of lymph nodes removed, and estimated blood loss were also not significantly different. However, the robot console time was shorter for the EP group than for the TP group (89.1 vs. 107.8 minutes, p = 0.03). Postoperative pain scale scores were lower in the EP group than in the TP group (2.7 vs. 6.3, p < 0.001). The incidence of ileus and hernia were lower in the EP group; however, the incidence of lymphocele was higher in the EP group. Postoperative potency and continence rates were similar between the groups; however, the EP group had a faster recovery of continence compared with the TP group.

CONCLUSIONS

The EP approach has similar oncological and perioperative results, less postoperative pain, less bowel-associated complication, and better functional outcomes than those of the TP approach. The EP approach may be an important alternative in robotic radical prostatectomy.

Overcoming the learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) has been rapidly adopted in the last few years despite having a prolonged learning curve. This article describes the RALP learning curve, reviews in detail the challenging steps of the operation, describes the authors' RALP technique, and concludes with tips to overcome the learning curve.

The learning curve for surgical margins after open radical prostatectomy: implications for margin status as an oncological end point

PURPOSE

Surgical margin status is commonly used as an end point for surgical learning. We examined the surgical margin learning curve and investigated whether surgical margins are a good marker for oncological outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study cohort included 7,765 patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy by 1 of 72 surgeons at a total of 4 major American academic medical centers. We calculated the learning curve for surgical margins and a concordance probability between the surgeon rates of positive surgical margins and 5-year biochemical recurrence.

RESULTS

A positive surgical margin was identified in 2,059 patients (27%). On multivariate analysis surgeon experience was strongly associated with surgical margin status (p = 0.017). The probability of a positive surgical margin was 40% for a surgeon with 10 prior cases, which decreased to 25% for a surgeon with 250 (absolute difference 15%, 95% CI 11 to 18). Learning curves differed dramatically among surgeons. For surgeon pairs the surgeon with the superior positive surgical margin rate also had the better biochemical recurrence rate only 58% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

We noted a learning curve for surgical margins after open radical prostatectomy. The poor concordance between surgeon margin and recurrence rates suggests that while margins clearly matter and efforts should be made to decrease positive margin rates, surgical margin status is not a strong surrogate for cancer control. These results have implications for using the margin rate to evaluate changes in surgical technique and as surgeon feedback.

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a review

INTRODUCTION

We offer an overview of the intra-, peri- and postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) with the endpoint to evaluate potential advantages of this approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted an extensive Medline literature search (search terms "laparoscopic radical prostatectomy" and "radical prostatectomy") from 1990 until 2007. Only full-length English language articles identified during this search were considered for this analysis. A preference was given to the articles with large series with more than 100 patients. All pertinent articles concerning localized prostate cancer were reviewed.

CONCLUSION

Pure LRP has shown to be feasible and reproducible but it is difficult to learn. Potential advantages over open surgery have to be confirmed by longer-term follow-up and adequately designed clinical studies.

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Surgical, oncological and functional outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To report the first results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) at our institution.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The surgical, functional and oncological outcomes of all patients who underwent LRP at Helsinki University Central Hospital between May 2002 and May 2006 were prospectively evaluated. The first eight patients were operated transperitoneally and the next 72 extraperitoneally.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 328+/-73 min (range 210-510 min). The mean estimated blood loss was 769+/-906 ml (range 50-5500 ml), and 18 patients (22.5%) had transfusions. The mean catheterization time was 13.2+/-4.0 days (range 9-35 days). Mean hospital stay was 5.7+/-3.1 days (range 3-15 days). Nineteen patients (23.8%) had perioperative complications. The conversion rate to open surgery was 11.3% and 6.3% required an immediate re-operation. Three anastomotic strictures (5.7%) and two cases of ileus (3.8%) were observed. The cancer was intracapsular (pT1-2) in 68 patients (85.0%) and extracapsular (pT3-4) in 12 (15.0%). Positive surgical margins were noted in 20 patients (25.0%) in total: 17.6% of pT1-2 cases and 66.7% of pT3-4 cases. Prostate-specific antigen recurrence (> or =0.2 ng/ml) was noted in 5/53 patients (9.4%), who were followed for >12 months. The continence rate (no daily pad use) was 86.8% and the potency rate was 34.6% at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical, functional and oncological results of our first LRPs compare fairly well with the early experience of others. LRP is feasible outside high-volume centers but the learning curve is expected to be long.

[Pure laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: comparative study to assess functional urinary outcomes]

PURPOSE

To compare urinary functional outcomes after LP prostatectomy or robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy performed by a single surgeon regarding to his initial experience.

MATERIAL

Between March 2005 and April 2007, 247 consecutive patients underwent radical prostatectomy, either by LP approach (125) or by robotic-assisted laparoscopic (RALP) approach (122). The only criteria to chose robot or not, was the Robot Da Vinci's availability.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of preoperative characteristics. The continence rate was 83% in PL group versus 81% in RALP group. More precisely, among men wearing at least one pad, 71% of patients in PL groups wear one pad/day versus 87% of patients in RALP group. Multivariate analysis on continence appears to be in favors of RALP group (Odd Ratio 2.1 [CI: 0,86-5,48]).

CONCLUSION

Incontinence appears to be less severe and frequent in the RALP group. In practice, surgeon's impression of the robot's interest is evident, but more important number of patients and longer follow-up is necessary.

[Initial series of radical prostatectomy in a general hospital: review and comparative of national and international series]

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The radical prostatectomy is a technique that has shown competitive oncological and functional results, that is why it has become to be a routine procedure in many leading centers. Nevertheless, the difficulty of learning and its initial cost, could question its implantation as a routine technique in centers that are not a point of reference. We have carried out a descriptive study of our initial series analyzing the surgical technique, post surgical immediate results, and oncological and functional short-term outcomes, comparing them with other series in national and international centers.

METHODS

From February, 2006 to August, 2007 we performed 69 laparoscopical procedures in our center, of which 34 were radical prostatectomies. The average age of the series were 63 years (50-72), with a prostate average weight by transrectal ultrasound of 35 gr. (17-72), and a median PSA of 6ng/ml (4-35). The clinical stages were: T1c 59%, T2a 12%, T2b 17%, T2c 12%; with Gleason combined of: 2+2 in 3%, 3+3 in 35%, 3+4 in 15%, 4+3 in 44%, 4+5 in 3%.

RESULTS

Out of the 34 cases initiated by laparoscopy, 30 were concluded laparoscopically, with a surgical average time of 261 minutes (150-380). The pathological stages were: pT2a 3%, pT2b 18%, pT2c 41%, pT3a 32%, pT3b 6%. With Gleason of: 3+3 in 26%, 3+4 in 14%, 4+3 in 47%, 4+4 in 9%, 4+5 in 3%. We obtained 29% of positive margins (50% pT3a, 20% pT3b, 20% pT2b, 10% pT2c). Four cases were converted to open surgery, one due to subcutaneous emphysema, one to enlarged surgical time, one bleeding, and one rectal injury. The continence (0-1 pads) at the first month was 62%, reaching 84% at 6 months. The erection, remained in 50% of the patients at the first month, in the four cases of intrafascial dissection.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is a technique of difficult learning, and initially requires higher surgical time than open surgery. Nevertheless, we prove that it is a reliable technique with competitive oncological and functional results, early recovery and little bleeding even in the initial series. Therefore, it should be considered an option for the treatment of prostate cancer also in not leading centers.

Impact of a clinical pathway in patient care following surgery on laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of clinical pathway (CP) implementation in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) has had on patient care and clinical evolution after discharge.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty-six patients were included in 2 groups: first group was composed of patients operated since the new technique (LRP) was used until the CP was implemented (26 patients operated in 2002) and, second group, with 60 patients, followed the CP during 2004 and 2005.

RESULTS

The operative time was reduced from 377.7 to 172.3 minutes after the CP implementation. The duration of bladder catheterization decreased by more than 10 days (from 26.17 to 15.85 days) and that of thromboprophylaxis was reduced from 6.44 to 3.38 days. No difference was found in the rate of complications in the first month after surgery, nor was there any difference in the rate of occurrence of erectile dysfunction, incontinence, and biochemical recurrence during the first year after surgery.

CONCLUSION

After the implementation of the CP, there have been better results in patient care, such as reduction in the duration of catheterization and thromboprophylaxis. In comparison with other studies, we observed a clear reduction in length of stay and operative time. However, there is still room for improvement in reducing the duration of catheterization.

Prevention and management of perioperative complications in laparoscopic and endoscopic radical prostatectomy

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomy (LRP) and endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE) are established techniques for the management of localized prostate cancer in numerous specialized urologic centers worldwide.

RESULTS

The complication rates of LRP and EERPE are ranging between 2 and 17%. Rare but possible complications are vascular injuries, bowel injury, lymphocele formation, port-site hernia, anastomotic leakage, gas embolism and catheter obstruction and other rare events.

CONCLUSION

Prevention and management of complications requires high surgical expertise and adequate standardization of the technique.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We herein review our experience with the endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy in a series of 1,800 consecutive patients regarding the appearance of complications and their management.

[Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. First 50 cases in a middle sized hospital. Evaluation of the learning curve]

OBJECTIVE

Report our experience in the first 50 cases of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy performed in our Hospital. We describe the surgical technique and the modifications that we have applied. Time consumptions and technical difficulties are reviewed.

METHODS

From January 2005 to September 2006 we indicated 52 extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomies. Two of them were done with the advice of a master and won't be included in our series. We followed the Brussels technique with some modifications.

RESULTS

We completed integrally by laparoscopy the 78% of the cases (39/50). The 11 converted cases were done within the 25 first ones. Mean operating time for the pure laparoscopic cases was 280 minutes. We divide surgery in six steps with the following mean times in minutes: Trocars placement (30), seminal vessels dissection (95), Santorini (25), specimen in endobag (55), anasthomosis (55) and final (15). After case 25, the results improve. The most challenging step was seminal vessels dissection. Transfusion rate has been 7%. The mean hospitalization time has been 4 days with a 30% of patients discharged 48 hours after surgery. Positive surgical margins were observed in 12%. Two of our patients presented major complications (4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is feasible in an institution like ours if it has the aim of invest a big effort, especially regarding operating time. The most demanding steps are the dissection of the vesicoprostatic plane and the anasthomosis. There is a clear progression after case 25.

Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: Is one better than the other?

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the differences, if any, in outcomes with transperitoneal (TP) versus extraperitoneal (EP) approaches during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

METHODS

We reviewed the data from 40 consecutive patients who underwent EP-RARP at our institution by the same surgical team. The outcomes were compared with those of 40 consecutive patients who underwent TP-RARP performed by the same team in a nonrandomized manner. The operative and postoperative parameters (total operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, robotic console time, and robotic anastomosis time), as well as complications and surgical margin status, were analyzed and compared.

RESULTS

The patient demographics were similar in both groups. Nerve sparing was performed in 35 and 36 patients in the TP and EP groups, respectively. Pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed in 14 and 12 patients in the TP and EP groups, respectively. The operative time was slightly longer with the TP approach at 236 minutes (range 111 to 360) compared with 229 minutes (range 143 to 382) in the EP group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.5722) between the two groups. Also, the differences in robot console time, anastomosis time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay were not statistically significant between the two groups at the 5% significance level. The complication and positive surgical margin rates were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

As expected, the EP approach is feasible with RARP. Our data suggest that the EP approach is comparable to the TP approach and produces favorable outcomes. Surgeon preference will likely play a significant role in the approach used.

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.

Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: A Critical Analysis of Surgical Quality

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature and answer the question of whether the laparoscopic approach meets the quality standards.

METHODS

We conducted an extensive Medline literature search. The articles obtained and the experience at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center were used for interpretation and critical analysis of results. Long-term quality indicators are oncologic efficacy, potency rate, and continence rate. Short-term quality indicators are blood loss and transfusion rate, hospital stay, postoperative recovery, and rate and severity of complications.

RESULTS

Long-term quality indicators. Oncologic efficacy. Despite recent evidence that pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) at radical prostatectomy may be necessary to detect occult positive lymph nodes, and that extended node dissection may also have a positive impact on disease-free survival, PLND is rarely performed during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), which may have a negative impact on the long-term recurrence-free probability. Positive margins rates range from 11% to 26%, ranging from 6% to 8% for organ-confined disease and from 35% to 60% in those with extraprostatic extension. Most of these data include the first patients operated on when the technique of LRP was in early development. These rates seem high as compared to the contemporary data achieved in retropubic radical prostatectomy. Short-term biochemical recurrence rate have been published by only two centers and generalization to the whole laparoscopic patients and to long-term results are at present time hazardous. Functional outcome. Given the complexity of measuring, interpreting, and reporting continence and erectile dysfunction, the available results after LRP do not allow drawing any conclusion. Furthermore, the number of patients on whom results are reported is disproportionately low in relation to the large LRP experience accumulated so far. Short-term quality indicators. Assessment of LRP equanimity includes factors such as blood loss, transfusion rates, hospital stay, duration of catheterization, and complication profile. All the reports are concordant and demonstrate a benefit for the laparoscopic approach. However, no prospective and parallel studies compare the respective advantages of LRP and radical retropubic prostatectomy in reference centers.

CONCLUSIONS

In a review of the published literature results of LRP, there is not enough evidence to answer the question of whether the laparoscopic approach meets the quality standards. The available biochemical recurrence information is promising but limited to the short-term and the experience of two centers only. The question of omitting the PLND or performing a limited one in high-risk patients needs to be answered. The functional results analyses suffer from a lack of uniformity in methodology, a limited follow-up, and a disproportionately small number of patients in relation to the accumulated experience. Future reports of the post-learning phase era are dramatically needed.

Laparoscopic and Robotic Assisted Radical Prostatectomy – Critical Analysis of the Results

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (RLRP) based on personal experience and a review of the literature.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Own experience at one European and one American LRP-center includes more than 2000 cases. We performed a MEDLINE search reviewing the literature on LRP and RLRP between 1992 and 2005 with special emphasis on historical aspects, technical considerations, comparison to open retropubic (RRP) and perineal radical prostatectomy (PRP), laparoscopic training, and the cost-efficiency of the techniques.

RESULTS

Based on sophisticated training programs a continuous dissemination of the technique took place. In the United States, this process was accelerated by the use of the daVinci-robot. There is a trend towards the extraperitoneal access. Mid-term outcomes of LRP achieved equivalence to open surgery with regards to complications, oncologic and functional results. Distinct advantages of LRP include less postoperative pain, lower rate of complications, shorter convalescence, and better cosmesis. In contrast to RLRP, LRP may reach cost-equivalence with open surgery (i.e. by reduction of OR-time, use of multi-usable instruments).

CONCLUSIONS

LRP reproduces the excellent results of open surgery providing the advantages of minimal access. Video-assisted teaching improves the transfer of anatomical knowledge and technical knowhow. In contrast the United States, the use of robots is likely to remain limited in Europe.

Robotic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: an alternative approach

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with or without a robot has been increasingly performed worldwide, primarily using a transperitoneal approach. We report our experience with daVinci(R) robot assisted extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 325 patients underwent robot assisted extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer at our center during a 2-year period. Perioperative data, and oncological and functional results were prospectively recorded.

RESULTS

Perioperative demographics included mean age, PSA and Gleason score, which were 60 years (range 42 to 76), 6.6 ng/ml (range 0.6 to 26) and 6 (range 5 to 9), respectively. Preoperative clinical stage was 81%, 16% and 3% for T1c, T2a and T2b, respectively. Average total operative time was 130 minutes (range 80 to 480). Intraoperative data included a mean blood loss of 196 cc with no open conversions. Bilateral, unilateral and nonnerve sparing prostatectomy was performed in 70%, 24% and 6% of patients, respectively. Of the patients 96% were discharged home within 8 to 23 hours of surgery. Pathological stage was pT2a, pT2b, pT3a and pT3b in 18%, 63%, 14% and 5% of all radical prostatectomy specimens, respectively, with an overall positive surgical margin rate of 13%. Two of 92 patients had positive nodal disease after lymph node dissection. Continence and erectile function were measured.

CONCLUSIONS

The extraperitoneal approach offers the advantages of improved dexterity and visualization of the robot, while avoiding the abdominal cavity and potential associated morbidity. As surgeons gain more experience with this new technology, the extraperitoneal approach simulating the standard open retropubic technique is likely to gain popularity.

Robot-assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

The aim of this study is to report the relative advantages and disadvantages of the radical prostatectomy with a laparoscopic (LRP) and a robotic (RALP) approach. A medline search was performed. Published data regarding perioperative parameters, complications, oncological results, functional results were analyzed. Shorter learning curves have been reported with the RALP. Intra-operative and post-operative outcomes appear to be comparable between the two approaches. The average time for LRP is 234 min (151-453) versus 182 min (141-250) for RALP. Estimated blood loss for the LRP averages 482 ml (185-850) versus 234 ml (75-500) for the RALP. Complication rates in single institution studies are similar. Long-term outcomes data on PSA progression is not yet available for LRP or RALP due to their relatively short existence. RALP appears to offer a significant benefit to the laparoscopically naïve surgeon with respect to learning curve when compared to LRP. This, however, comes at an increased cost. Intra-operative and post-operative outcomes appear to be similar. Longer follow-up data is necessary to compare oncological and functional outcomes.

Nerve Sparing Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Our Technique

PURPOSE

To describe our technique of nerve sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). We present the oncological and functional results (potency and urinary continence).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

LRP has become standard at our institution based on experience with more than 2800 consecutive cases operated on between 1997 and 2005. From May 2003 to March 2005 a total of 677 LRP were performed, 425 consecutive patients candidates for a nerve sparing technique have been operated using the intrafascial approach. The challenge of our technique is to remove the prostate without any thermic and mechanic traumatism, avoiding dissection of outer layer. Oncological data were assessed by pathological examination and post-operative PSA level. Functional results were assessed with a self questionnaire.

RESULTS

By pathological stage, 2 pT2a specimens (7.4%), 7 pT2b specimens (21%), 44 pT2c specimens (24%), 63 pT3a specimens (43%), 11 pT3b specimens (46%) were found to have positive surgical margins (SMs). In 86 specimen (59%) positive SMs were focal inframillimetric. Median follow-up was 11 months (range 1-22). The continence rate (no leakage/no pad) was 95% at 6 months, confirmed at 12 months among 202 patients. For 137 patients, potency rate was 58.5% at 12 months.

CONCLUSION

Intrafascial LRP provides satisfactory results in regard to recovery of continence and sexual function. Long-term progression and survival outcome are necessary before this procedure should be offered as a replacement for interfascial nerve sparing technique.

Preliminary experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical prostatectomy through duplication of the open technique

OBJECTIVE

To describe surgical and functional results with extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with duplication of the open technique, from the experience obtained in the treatment of 28 initial cases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a 36-month period, we prospectively analyzed 28 patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer undergoing extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

RESULTS

Mean surgical time was 280 min, with mean blood loss of 320 mL. As intraoperative complications, there were 2 rectal lesions repaired with laparoscopic suture in 2 planes. There was no conversion to open surgery. Median hospital stay was 3 days, with return to oral diet in the first post-operative day in patients. As post-operative complications, there were 3 cases of extraperitoneal urinary fistula. Two of these cases were resolved by maintaining a Foley catheter for 21 days, and the other one by late endoscopic reintervention for repositioning the catheter. Five out of 18 previously potent patients evolved with erectile dysfunction. The diagnosis of prostate cancer was confirmed in all patients, with focal positive margin occurring in 3 cases. During a mean follow-up of 18 months, 2 patients presented increased PSA, with no clinical evidence of disease.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is a laborious and difficult procedure, with a long learning curve. Extraperitoneal access is feasible, and it is possible to practically duplicate the principles of open surgery. The present technique can possibly offer advantages in terms of decreased blood loss, preservation of erectile function and prevention of positive margins.

Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal approach to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: an assessment of 156 cases

OBJECTIVES

To compare the results of 122 transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (TP-LRP) procedures with those of 34 extraperitoneal LRP (EP-LRP) procedures to assess for differences in outcomes and complications. Both TP-LRP and EP-LRP have been touted as effective techniques for performing LRP.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 156 LRPs performed by a single surgeon (D.M.D.) at a single institution between October 2001 and June 2003. EP-LRP was introduced in February 2003.

RESULTS

The cohorts were similar in terms of mean patient age, height, weight, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification. Of the total cohort, 19 TP-LRP (16%) and 11 EP-LRP (32%) patients had clinical Stage T2; the remainder had clinical Stage T1c. Similarly, 18 TP-LRP (15%) and 9 EP-LRP (26%) patients had a biopsy Gleason grade of 7 or greater. About one third of patients underwent concomitant pelvic lymphadenectomy (all negative), and 15 TP-LRP (12%) and 2 EP-LRP (6%) patients underwent simultaneous inguinal or umbilical herniorrhaphy. Six TP-LRP patients (5%) required significant lysis of bowel adhesions. The patients in both groups had similar mean operative times (197 minutes and 191 minutes for the TP-LRP and EP-LRP group, respectively; P = 0.29). Clinically significant anastomotic leaks were documented in 7 (6%) TP-LRP and 4 (12%) EP-LRP patients (P = 0.22). The two groups had similar mean hemoglobin decreases (3.0 g/dL) and transfusion rates. The mean time of drainage and hospitalization was 0.5 day longer for the TP-LRP cohort. A mean pathologic Gleason grade of 6.3 was noted for each cohort. Twenty-one TP-LRP (17%) and eight EP-LRP (24%) specimens were pathologic Stage T3, and 29 (24%) of the former and 7 (21%) of the latter (P = 0.81) specimens were margin positive. The complication rates were similar (11% and 12% in TP-LRP and EP-LRP groups, respectively; P = 1.0), except for a greater rate of ileus in the TP-LRP cohort (3 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Extraperitoneal LRP appears to offer similar results to TP-LRP. TP-LRP was associated with a slightly greater ileus rate and EP-LRP with a slightly greater anastomotic leak rate (P = 0.22). However, the latter may have been the result of improved detection. Also, it was easier to manage using the EP-LRP approach.

[Prognostic implications of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens]

To evaluate the histopathologic implication of positive margins of prostatectomy specimens in the biochemical recurrence.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study group consisted of 290 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer who were treated by radical retropubic prostatectomy. Patients with neoadjuvant hormonal therapy and positive lymph nodes were excluded. The mean age at the time of surgery was 63 years (range 47-73); 166 (57.2%) patients were T1c and 124 (42.8%) T2; the average time of folow-up was of 4 years (range 1-12). Positive surgical margins were defined as the presence of cancer cells at the surface inked of prostatectomy specimens. They were classified as: Margin for capsular incision (without extraprostatic extension evidence)/ margin for extraprostatic extension, margin with smooth rounded surface/margin with irregular surface, margin < or = 4 mm/margin > 4 mm, unifocal margin/multifocal margin. We define biochemical recurrence if the PSA exceeds 0.20 ng/ml in two consecutive determinations.

RESULTS

The overall rate of positive margins was 65/290 (22.4%). The 5-year survival free of biochemical recurrence was as follows: Negative margins 71% vs positive margins 44% (p < 0.001); positive margins for capsular incision 84% vs positive margins for extraprostatic extension 33% (p < 0.01); positive margins with smooth rounded surface 58% vs positive margins with irregular surface 26% (p < 0.01); positive margins < or = 4 mm 57% vs positive margins > 4 mm 32% (p < 0.05); unifocal margins 53% vs multifocal margins 0% (p < 0.01). The multivariate analysis revealed that preoperative PSA, Gleason score and pathological classification were the best predictors of biochemical recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Two groups are established of positive margin. The first group with high probability of biochemical recurrence: margin for extraprostatic. The second group with less probability of biochemical recurrence: margin for capsular incision, margin with smooth rounded surface, margin < or = 4 mm and unifocal margin.

Update on laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted prostatectomy have been proposed as alternatives to traditional open retropubic prostatectomy. In this review, we update the more recent data concerning the results, technical trends and controversies regarding these novel, minimally invasive procedures.

RECENT FINDINGS

As a result of improved patient selection, a better understanding of surgical anatomy, and refinements in surgical techniques, traditional retropubic prostatectomy set the standards very high, leaving little room for improvement. In this review, the results of laparoscopic prostatectomy are compared with contemporary in addition to historical series. Besides the transperitoneal laparoscopic approach, which was almost exclusively used in the initial series, the introduction and development of the extraperitoneal laparoscopic approach meant a significant change in the surgical strategy of a number of teams worldwide. The relative merits of the transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches are discussed. Robotic radical prostatectomy is a promising technical innovation that allows us to overcome many of the inherent limitations of laparoscopic surgery. As a result of financial constraints, the experience has been limited to a few centres worldwide.

SUMMARY

Although long-term results are still lacking, novel minimally invasive techniques seem to fulfil the highest standards of radical prostatectomy in terms of early oncological cure, functional results and morbidity. A standardization of data collection and evaluation methodology will be indispensable for a better comparison of the different series.

Morbidity of laparoscopic extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal radical prostatectomy verus open retropubic radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

Morbidity and postoperative pain after extraperitoneal (E-LRPE) and transperitoneal (T-LRPE) laparoscopic radical prostatectomy was compared to open extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (O-RPE).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between January 2002 and October 2003, we evaluated 41 E-LRPE, 39 T-LRPE and 41 O-RPE prospectively. All operations were performed as standard procedures by the same group of surgeons and perioperative results and complications were evaluated. Pain management was performed with tramadol 50-100 mg on demand, and no other form of anaesthesia was given. Postoperative pain was assessed daily in all patients quantifying analgesic requirement and evaluation of Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). All patients had at least a 12 month follow-up.

RESULTS

Mean age, prostate volume, PSA and Gleason score were comparable between all three groups (p>0.05). Mean blood loss was lower with laparoscopy (189+/-140 and 290+/-254 ml), as compared to 385+/-410 ml for O-RPE (p=0.002). However, mean operating times were significantly longer in L-TRPE (279+/-70 min) as compared to E-LRPE (217+/-51 min) and O-RPE (195+/-72 min) (p<0.001), but E-LRPE and O-RPE showed no statistical difference (p=0.1143). Average VAS score on the 1st and 5th postoperative day for E-LRPE versus T-LRPE versus O-RPE was 4.9+/-1.0 versus 7.8+/-1.5 versus 5.8+/-1.9 and 1.6+/-0.9 versus 2.3+/-1.2 versus 2.3+/-0.9 respectively, which was significant lower (p=0.02) between E-LRPE versus T-LRPE (p<0.001) and O-RPE (p=0.008), but equal (p=0.655) between T-LRPE and O-RPE since postoperative day 3. Mean tramadol analgesic consumption within the first postoperative week was 290 versus 490 versus 300 mg respectively, which was statistical different between E-LRPE and T-LRPE (p<0.001), O-RPE and T-LRPE (p<0.001), but not between E-LRPE and O-RPE (p=0.550). Statistical analysis revealed a strong correlation of urinary leakage with increased postoperative pain (p=0.029) in all groups, especially for T-LRPE (p=0.007). Likewise, increased operating times (>240 min) were associated with increased post-operative pain (p=0.049). Full continence defined as no pads at one year was achieved in 36/41 (88%, E-LRPE) versus 33/39 (85%, T-LRPE) versus 33/41 (81%, O-RPE), respectively (p=0.2).

CONCLUSION

E-LRPE resulted in a significant subjective (VAS Score, p<0.001) and objective (analgetic consumption, p<0.001) pain reduction compared to T-LRPE, but only in VAS Score compared to O-RPE (p=0.008). Analgetic consumption during first postoperative week was equal in E-LRPE (290 mg) and O-RPE (300 mg) (p=0.550). Shorter operating times, lower urinary leakage rates, lower stricture rates and lower blood loss in E-LRPE compared to T-LRPE are mainly explained due to the long learning curve in LRPE, which we did not overcome yet, and not due to the approach (extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal).

LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY

PURPOSE

After the pioneering period when only few teams were performing the procedure, the laparoscopic approach to radical prostatectomy has become widespread with several technical variations. A comprehensive review of the published literature on laparoscopic radical prostatectomy was performed to determine the current state of the art of this surgical innovation in terms of perioperative parameters, functional results and cancer control.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

English language, peer reviewed articles published before June 2004 concerning laparoscopic radical prostatectomy were found by MEDLINE query. All articles were analyzed and none were a priori excluded. Conclusions were drawn from series of 50 or more patients.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is being performed at multiple centers worldwide using various surgical approaches and technologies. Analysis of perioperative parameters, including surgical blood loss, operative time, complications and convalescence, demonstrated low morbidity and showed a clear trend toward improvement with increased experience. The reported positive surgical margin rates were lower in more recent series. As measured by prostate specific antigen recurrence and disease-free intervals, oncological results and cancer control rates are difficult to ascertain in the immature series published to date. Functional results in terms of postoperative urinary and sexual function appear encouraging.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall the current operative, oncological and functional results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy appear to approximate those of open radical retropubic prostatectomy. These results justify the considerable interest of the urological community in laparoscopy, as evidenced by its widespread application. Nevertheless, longer followup and more mature data are needed definitively to establish laparoscopic radical prostatectomy as an alternative to the retropubic approach.

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approach: is there an advantage for the patient?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Radical prostatectomy is the standard treatment for localized prostate cancer; its translation to a laparoscopic approach is considered today not only as feasible and reproducible but also as a valid and teachable alternative to its open counterpart. Beyond the "classical" transperitoneal antegrade route codified by the Montsouris group, several extraperitoneal approaches were developed, claiming clinical equivalence and reduced risks of morbidity and operative times. This article summarizes various aspects of different approaches and their outcome.

RECENT FINDINGS

Complications reported about transperitoneal procedures definitely further the discovery or learning curves of the pioneering teams; the groups who developed extraperitoneal alternatives established their "new approaches" on a solid base of technical skills, acquired transperitoneally. Beyond the unsurpassed qualities of visual and working spaces belonging to the transperitoneal route, which should be taken into account with respect to teaching, transperitoneal antegrade approach to the prostate enables the surgeon with early hemostatic control and essential tactical choices to achieve negative surgical margins.

SUMMARY

So far, as oncological and functional results of both approaches seem equivalent, both approaches should be further developed and remain available for teaching purposes. The true benefit for patients lies more in global quality control of surgery than in an obsessional search for alternatives to established techniques that have already stood the proof of time.

Laparoscopic approaches in urology

The use of laparoscopy was one of the most important steps in the progress of medicine, and has developed through the 20th century. Gynaecologists took the initial lead in introducing this technology, followed by general surgeons. Since the first laparoscopic nephrectomy in 1990, most ablative and reconstructive urological surgery has been attempted laparoscopically. Laparoscopic urological surgical approaches include conventional transperitoneal and extraperitoneal; in this review the different approaches, with the relevant anatomical considerations, are discussed.