López-Verdugo JF, Vargas-Valtierra P, Fernández-González AH, Camacho-Trejo VF, Zapata-González JA

Language: Spanish
References: 18
Page: 98-103
PDF size: 2010.52 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To analyze laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) results obtained over the last two years.
Materials and methods: Case records of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (CaP) who consecutively underwent LRP from August 1, 2006 to July 31 2008 (n = 115) were reviewed. Mean age, clinical tumor stage (TNM), prostate specific antigen (PSA), Gleason score (pre- and postoperative), surgery duration, bleeding, hospitalization duration, morbidity, mortality, urinary continence and postoperative sexual potency were all evaluated.
Results: A total of 115 case records were reviewed. Patient age was from 48 to 78 years with a mean age of 62 years and standard deviation (SD) of ± 6.9 and the most frequent age was 60 years. Morbidity was 8.6% and mortality was 0.8%. Clinical stage varied from T1a to T3b. One hundred patients presented with PSA ‹ 20 ng/ml, with a mean 8.6 and SD ± 3.2. The remaining 15 patients underwent pelvic lymphadenectomy. Preoperative Gleason score was in a range of 3 to 7, with a mode of 7, and the 3+4 score was predominant (23% patients). A total of 24 intrafascial surgeries and 91 extrafascial surgeries were performed (42 nerve-sparing and 73 non-nervesparing procedures). Thirty-nine patients underwent urethropexy and 29 underwent lymphadenectomy. Mean surgery duration was 164 minutes (90 to 420 min range and SD ± 50 min). Mean intraoperative bleeding was 384 ml (100-1800 ml range and SD ± 276 ml) and mean hospitalization duration was 3.3 days (1 to 12 day range and SD ± 1.3). There were no conversions to open surgery. Urinary continence at 8, 30, and 90 days presented in 42.95%, 82.4% and 97.3% of patients, respectively. There was absence of erection in 18 patients prior to surgery and of the remaining 97 patients, 31 (31.6%) presented with absence of erection after surgery.
Oncological Results: Four patients presented with positive margins (3.5%) and mean PSA at 3 and 6 months was 0.058 and 0.08 ng/ml, respectively.
Conclusions: The results of this series are similar to those published by other authors. Reduced procedure morbidity, low complication rate and excellent oncological and function-preserving results make LRP an ideal treatment for CaP.

REFERENCES

1. Registro histopatológico de neoplasias malignas. México, DF: SSA; 2003.

2. Gonzalgo ML, Patil N, Su LM, Patel VR. Minimally invasive surgical approaches and management of prostate cancer. Urol Clin North Am 2008 Aug;35(3):489-504.

3. Grubb RL, Vardi IY, Bhayani SB, Kibel AS. Minimally Invasive Approaches to Localized Prostate Carcinoma. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2006 Aug;20(4):879-95.

4. Schuessler WW, et al. Laparoscopic staging pelvic lymphadenectomy: initial experience. J Urol 1991;146:941-8.

5. Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris Experience. J Urol 2000 Feb;163(2):418-22.

6. Fracalanza S, Ficarra V, Cavalleri S, Galfano A, et al. Is robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy less invasive than retropubic radical prostatectomy? Results from a prospective, unrandomized comparative study. BJU Int 2008 May;101(9):1145-9.

7. Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Gettman MT. The new economic of radical prostatectomy: cost, comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot assisted techniques. J Urol 2004 Oct;172(4 Pt 1):1431-5.

8. Bates TS, Wright MP, Gillatt DA. Prevalence and impact of incontinence and impotence following total prostatectomy assessed anonymously by the ICS-Male questionnaire. Eur Urol 1998;33(2):165-9.

9. Rosen RC, Riley A, Wagner G, Osterloh IH, et al. The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF): A multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology 1997 Jun;49(6):822-30.

10. Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology 1997 Dec;50(6):854-7.

11. Guillonneau B, Rozet F, Cathelineau X, Lay F, et al. Perioperative complications of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris 3-year experience. J Urol 2002 Jan;167(1):51-6.

12. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Tewari A, Sarle R, et al. Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy. Establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol 2002 Sep;168(3):945-9.

13. Hoznek A, Salomon L, Olsson LE, Antiphon P, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The Créteil experience. Eur Urol 2001 Jul;40(1):38-45.

14. Türk I, Deger S, Winkelmann B, Schönberger B, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Technical aspects and experience with 125 cases. Eur Urol 2001 Jul;40(1):46-52; discussion 53.

15. Gill IS, Ukimura O. Thermal energy-free laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: one-year potency outcomes. Urology 2007 Aug;70(2):309-14.

16. Roumeguere T, Bollens R, Vanden Bossche M, Rochet D, et al. Radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of oncological and functional results between open and laparoscopic approaches. World J Urol 2003 May;20(6):360-6. Epub 2003 Apr 3.

17. Olsson LE, Salomon L, Nadu A, Hoznek A, et al. Prospective patientreported continence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2001 Oct;58(4):570-2.

18. Abbou CC, Hoznek A, Salomon L, Olsson LE, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot. J Urol 2001 Jun;165(6 Pt 1):1964-6.