Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience of a single center.
Urology. 2006 Aug; 68(2):376-80.U

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To analyze, in a consecutive study, the perioperative, postoperative, and functional results of the transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

A total of 160 patients underwent radical prostatectomy and were subdivided into two groups. Group 1 underwent the transperitoneal approach and group 2, the extraperitoneal approach. The preoperative parameters, age, prostate-specific antigen level, biopsy Gleason score, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, body mass index, and clinical stage, were considered. The perioperative parameters evaluated were the operative time, blood loss, blood transfusion, hospital stay, catheterization time, complications, histopathologic findings, TNM stage, Gleason score, prostate and tumor volumes, and functional results.

RESULTS

The patients in both groups had comparable preoperative data. No differences were observed between the two groups in the intraoperative data, except for the mean operative time (179 +/- 54.6 for group 1 versus 133.7 +/- 27 minutes for group 2). Also, no differences were observed between the two groups in terms of the postoperative data. The proportion of complications was 21.25% in group 1 and 22.5% in group 2. We recorded symptomatic lymphocele requiring treatment with a drain or reoperation in 8 patients (10%) in group 2 and 0% in group 1 (P <0.001) of all the patients who underwent lymphadenectomy. The rate of positive surgical margins was 25% for group 1 and 21.25% for group 2 (P = NS). For those with Stage pT2, the positive margin rate was 7.3% and 10% for groups 1 and 2, respectively. The recovery of continence at 3 months was faster in group 2 (75% of patients versus 50.9% in group 1; P <0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The extraperitoneal approach required less operative time and enabled faster recovery of continence and the transperitoneal approach prevented the formation of lymphocele.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Urology, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano, Torino, Italy. porpiglia@libero.itNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

16904456

Citation

Porpiglia, Francesco, et al. "Transperitoneal Versus Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Experience of a Single Center." Urology, vol. 68, no. 2, 2006, pp. 376-80.
Porpiglia F, Terrone C, Tarabuzzi R, et al. Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience of a single center. Urology. 2006;68(2):376-80.
Porpiglia, F., Terrone, C., Tarabuzzi, R., Billia, M., Grande, S., Musso, F., Burruni, R., Renard, J., & Scarpa, R. M. (2006). Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience of a single center. Urology, 68(2), 376-80.
Porpiglia F, et al. Transperitoneal Versus Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Experience of a Single Center. Urology. 2006;68(2):376-80. PubMed PMID: 16904456.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience of a single center. AU - Porpiglia,Francesco, AU - Terrone,Carlo, AU - Tarabuzzi,Roberto, AU - Billia,Michele, AU - Grande,Susanna, AU - Musso,Francesca, AU - Burruni,Rodolfo, AU - Renard,Julien, AU - Scarpa,Roberto Mario, PY - 2005/11/12/received PY - 2006/01/20/revised PY - 2006/02/23/accepted PY - 2006/8/15/pubmed PY - 2006/8/30/medline PY - 2006/8/15/entrez SP - 376 EP - 80 JF - Urology JO - Urology VL - 68 IS - 2 N2 - OBJECTIVES: To analyze, in a consecutive study, the perioperative, postoperative, and functional results of the transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. METHODS: A total of 160 patients underwent radical prostatectomy and were subdivided into two groups. Group 1 underwent the transperitoneal approach and group 2, the extraperitoneal approach. The preoperative parameters, age, prostate-specific antigen level, biopsy Gleason score, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, body mass index, and clinical stage, were considered. The perioperative parameters evaluated were the operative time, blood loss, blood transfusion, hospital stay, catheterization time, complications, histopathologic findings, TNM stage, Gleason score, prostate and tumor volumes, and functional results. RESULTS: The patients in both groups had comparable preoperative data. No differences were observed between the two groups in the intraoperative data, except for the mean operative time (179 +/- 54.6 for group 1 versus 133.7 +/- 27 minutes for group 2). Also, no differences were observed between the two groups in terms of the postoperative data. The proportion of complications was 21.25% in group 1 and 22.5% in group 2. We recorded symptomatic lymphocele requiring treatment with a drain or reoperation in 8 patients (10%) in group 2 and 0% in group 1 (P <0.001) of all the patients who underwent lymphadenectomy. The rate of positive surgical margins was 25% for group 1 and 21.25% for group 2 (P = NS). For those with Stage pT2, the positive margin rate was 7.3% and 10% for groups 1 and 2, respectively. The recovery of continence at 3 months was faster in group 2 (75% of patients versus 50.9% in group 1; P <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The extraperitoneal approach required less operative time and enabled faster recovery of continence and the transperitoneal approach prevented the formation of lymphocele. SN - 1527-9995 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/16904456/Transperitoneal_versus_extraperitoneal_laparoscopic_radical_prostatectomy:_experience_of_a_single_center_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0090-4295(06)00274-3 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -