Abstract
Objective
To evaluate the surgical and functional outcomes in nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (nsLRPT) and nerve-sparing retropubic radical prostatectomy (nsRRPT) after TUR-P for incidental prostate cancer.
Materials and methods
Between January 2003 and August 2011, 125 nsLRPT and 128 nsRRPT for incidental prostate cancer diagnosed after TUR-P were performed at our clinic. Demographic data, peri- and postoperative measurements and functional outcomes were compared.
Results
The mean operative time was 153.1 ± 35.4 min for nsLRPT and 122.5 ± 67.5 min for nsRRPT (p = 0.03). The mean catheterization time was 8 ± 1 days in the laparoscopic group and 11 ± 2 days in the open group (p = 0.02). Also, the length of hospitalization presents statistical significant difference in the two groups. Positive margins were detected in 2.4 and 4.7 % of patients with pT2c tumours in the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively (p = 0.09). At a mean follow-up of 26.9 ± 9.3 months for the nsLRPT group and of 27.8 ± 9.7 months for the nsRRPT group, all patients were alive with no evidence of tumour recurrence. Twelve months postoperatively, complete continence was reported in 96.8 % of patients who underwent an nsLRPT and in 89.4 % of patients in the nsRRPT group (p = 0.02). At that time, 74.4 % of patients in the nsLRPT group and 53.1 % in the nsRRPT group reported the ability to engage in sexual intercourse (p = 0.0004).
Conclusion
nsLRPT after TUR-P, performed by expert surgeons, results to be a safe procedure with excellent functional outcomes with regard to the urinary continence and sexual potency.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M et al (2008) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 53:68–80
Greco F, Wagner S, Hoda MR et al (2010) Laparoscopic versus open retropubic intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: surgical and functional outcomes in 300 patients. BJU 106:543–547
Greco F, Hoda MR, Wagner S, Reichelt O, Inferrera A, Fischer K, Fornara P (2010) Adipocytokine: a new family of inflammatory and immunological markers of invasiveness in major urologic surgery. Eur Urol 58:781–787
Rassweiler J, Teber D, Kuntz R et al (2006) Complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)—incidence, management, and prevention. Eur Urol 50:969–979
Rossignol G, Leandri P, Ramon J, Gautier JR (1992) Radical prostatectomy in the management of stage A carcinoma of the prostate. Eur Urol 21:269–273
Bandhauer K, Senn E (1988) Radical retropubic prostatectomy after transurethral prostatic resection. Eur Urol 15:180–181
Colombo R, Naspro R, Salonia A et al (2006) Radical prostatectomy after previous prostate surgery: clinical and functional outcomes. J Urol 176:2459–2463
Suardi N, Scattoni V, Briganti A et al (2008) Nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy in patients previously submitted to holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for bladder outlet obstruction due to benign prostatic enlargement. Eur Urol 53:1180–1185
Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming IR et al (2002) AJCC cancer staging manual, 6th edn. Springer-Verlag, New York
Rosen MA, Goldstone L, Lapin S, Wheeler T, Scardino PT (1992) Frequency and location of extracapsular extension and positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 148:331–337
Kim SC, Song C, Kim W et al (2011) Factors determining functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy: robot-assisted versus retropubic. Eur Urol 60:413–419
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213
Rhoden EL, Telöken C, Sogari PR, Vargas Souto CA (2002) The use of the simplified international index of erectile function (IIEF-5) as a diagnostic tool to study the prevalence of erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 14(4):245–250
Artibani W, Grosso G, Novara G et al (2003) Is laparoscopic radical prostatectomy better than traditional retropubic radical prostatectomy? An analysis of peri-operative morbidity in two contemporary series in Italy. Eur Urol 44:401–406
Guazzoni G, Cestari A, Naspro R et al (2006) Intra- and peri-operative outcomes comparing radical retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: results from a prospective, randomised, single-surgeon study. Eur Urol 50:98–104
Jurczok A, Zacharias M, Wagner S, Hamza A, Fornara P (2007) Prospective non-randomized evaluation of four mediators of the systemic response after extraperitoneal laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 99:1461–1466
Rassweiler J, Stolzenburg JU, Sulser T et al (2006) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy-the experience of the german laparoscopic working group. Eur Urol 49:113–119
Stolzenburg JU, Liatsikos E, Rabenalt R et al (2006) Nerve sparing endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy—effect of puboprostatic ligament preservation on early continence and positive margins. Eur Urol 49:103–112
Lein M, Stibane I, Mansour R et al (2006) Complications, urinary continence and oncologic outcome of 1000 laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomies—experience at the charitè hospital Berlin, Campus Mitte. Eur Urol 50:1278–1284
Galli S, Simonato A, Bozzola A et al (2006) Oncologic outcome and continence recovery after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: 3 years’ follow-up in a “second generation centre”. Eur Urol 49:859–865
Katz R, Borkowski T, Hoznek A, Salomon L, Gettman MT, Abbou CC (2006) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in patients following transurethral resection of the prostate. Urol Int 77:216–221
Jaffe J, Stakhovsky O, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Vallancien G, Rozet F (2007) Surgical outcomes for men undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after transurethral resection of the prostate. J Urol 178:483–487
Yazici S, Inci K, Yuksel S, Bilen CY, Ozen H (2009) Radical prostatectomy after previous prostate surgery: effects on surgical difficulty and pathologic outcomes. Urology 73:856–859
Teber D, Cresswell J, Ates M et al (2009) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in clinical T1a and T1b prostate cancer: oncologic and functional outcomes—a matched-pair analysis. Urology 73:577–581
Menard J, de la Taille A, Hoznek A et al (2008) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after transurethral resection of the prostate: surgical and functional outcomes. Urology 72:593–597
Palisaar JR, Wenske S, Sommerer F, Hinkel A, Noldus J (2009) Open radical retropubic prostatectomy gives favourable surgical and functional outcomes after transurethral resection of the prostate. BJU Int 104:611–615
Salomon L, Sebe P, De La Taille A et al (2004) Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: part I. BJU Int 94:238–243
Salomon L, Sebe P, De La Taille A et al (2004) Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: part II. BJU Int 94:244–250
Acknowledgments
Dr. Christopher Springer is a research fellow of the Department of Urology and renal transplantation of the Martin Luther University.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Springer, C., Inferrera, A., Pini, G. et al. Laparoscopic versus open bilateral intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy after TUR-P for incidental prostate cancer: surgical outcomes and effect on postoperative urinary continence and sexual potency. World J Urol 31, 1505–1510 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1036-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1036-0