Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparison of early oncologic results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach.
Eur Urol. 2004 Jul; 46(1):50-4; discussion 54-6.EU

Abstract

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.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Service d'Urologie CHU Henri Mondor, 51. Av. Du Ml. de Lattre de Tassigny, 94010 Créteil cedex, France.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

15183547

Citation

Ruiz, Leticia, et al. "Comparison of Early Oncologic Results of Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy By Extraperitoneal Versus Transperitoneal Approach." European Urology, vol. 46, no. 1, 2004, pp. 50-4; discussion 54-6.
Ruiz L, Salomon L, Hoznek A, et al. Comparison of early oncologic results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach. Eur Urol. 2004;46(1):50-4; discussion 54-6.
Ruiz, L., Salomon, L., Hoznek, A., Vordos, D., Yiou, R., de la Taille, A., & Abbou, C. C. (2004). Comparison of early oncologic results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach. European Urology, 46(1), 50-4; discussion 54-6.
Ruiz L, et al. Comparison of Early Oncologic Results of Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy By Extraperitoneal Versus Transperitoneal Approach. Eur Urol. 2004;46(1):50-4; discussion 54-6. PubMed PMID: 15183547.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of early oncologic results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach. AU - Ruiz,Leticia, AU - Salomon,Laurent, AU - Hoznek,András, AU - Vordos,Dimitrios, AU - Yiou,René, AU - de la Taille,Alexandre, AU - Abbou,Clément-Claude, PY - 2004/04/19/accepted PY - 2004/6/9/pubmed PY - 2004/10/27/medline PY - 2004/6/9/entrez SP - 50-4; discussion 54-6 JF - European urology JO - Eur Urol VL - 46 IS - 1 N2 - 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. SN - 0302-2838 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/15183547/Comparison_of_early_oncologic_results_of_laparoscopic_radical_prostatectomy_by_extraperitoneal_versus_transperitoneal_approach_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0302283804001824 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -