Journals / Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology / 2014 / Cilt: 40 - Sayı: 2

Radical perineal prostatectomy: Our initial experience

Pages
89–92
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Among the open surgical procedures, the perineal approach is the least preferred by urologists, which may be related to their perception of its overall diffculty.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Radical prostatectomy is the standard treatment modality for localized prostate cancer.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Minimally invasive surgery, especially robotic surgery, has attracted interest in the last 10 years, and open surgery has been less preferred.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Among the open surgical procedures, the perineal approach is the least preferred by urologists, which may be related to their perception of its overall diffculty.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2011 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Radical prostatectomy is the standard treatment modality for localized prostate cancer. Minimally invasive surgery, especially robotic surgery, has attracted interest in the last 10 years, and open surgery has been less preferred. Among the open surgical procedures, the perineal approach is the least preferred by urologists, which may be related to their perception of its overall diffculty. In this study, we aimed to present our initial experience with learning and performing radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) and to draw attention to this method. Material and methods: After a short training period between November 2011 and May 2013, RPP was performed on 9 patients with localized prostate cancer. The patients were evaluated as for medical, and perioperative and major postoperative complications. Results: The mean age of the patients was 60.4±5.3 (50-68) years, the mean preoperative prostate-specifc antigen (PSA) value was 5.8±1.3 (4.0-7.6) ng/mL and the mean prostate volume was 38.8±7.7 (28-54) cc. The biopsy Gleason score ranged from 5 to 7. The median follow-up period was 14 (3-30) months. Anastomotic stricture did not occur in any of the patients. Of the 9 patients, 4 (44%) were immediately continent after catheter removal, while the remaining patients were continent at the end of three months. Of the 7 patients who underwent nerve-sparing surgery, 2 had postoperative spontaneous erections. Erectile function was maintained with phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE-5) inhibitor treatment in 3, and with intracavernosal injection in 1 patient. Penile prosthesis implantation was performed in 1 patient. Conclusion: RPP has been a promising procedure at the start with its favorable oncologic and functional outcomes. This method should be considered by urologists, although it has been previously perceived as a challenging surgical procedure to perform.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜNEŞ, M., AKYÜZ, M., URUÇ, F., ARAS, B., ALTOK, M., UMUL, M. (2014). Radical perineal prostatectomy: Our initial experience. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 40 - Sayı: 2, 89–92. https://ajindex.com/articles/328983

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Young H. The early diagnosis and radical cure of carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1905;16:315-21
  2. Belt E. Radical perineal prostatectomy in early carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1942;78:287-97
  3. Frazier HA, Robertson JE, Paulson DF. Radical prostatectomy: the pros and cons of the perineal versus retropubic approach. J Urol 1992;147:888-90
  4. Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol 1982;128:492-7
  5. Weldon VE, Tavel FR. Potency-sparing radical perineal prostatectomy: anatomy, surgical technique and initial results. J Urol 1988;140:559-62
  6. Theodorescu D, Lippert MC, Broder SR, Boyd JC. Early prostate- specifc antigen failure following radical perineal versus retropubic prostatectomy: the importance of seminal vesicle excision. Urology 1998;51:277-82
  7. Holzbeierlein JM, Porter HJ 2nd, Thrasher JB. The craft of urologic surgery: modern radical perineal prostatectomy. Urol Clin North Am 2004;31:629-41. [CrossRef] 8. Salomon L, Levrel O, Anastasiadis AG, Saint F, de La Taille A, Cicco A, et al. Outcome and complications of radical prostatectomy in patients with PSA _____10 ng/ml: comparison between the retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic approach. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2002;5:285-90. [CrossRef] 9. Salomon L, Levrel O, de la Taille A, Anastasiadis AG, Saint F, Zaki S, et al. Radical prostatectomy by the retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic approach: 12 years of experience in one center. Eur Urol 2002;42:104-10. [CrossRef] 10. Harris MJ. Radical perineal prostatectomy: cost effcient, outcome effective, minimally invasive prostate cancer management. Eur Urol 2003;44:303-38. [CrossRef] 11. Gillitzer R, Thomas C, Wiesner C, Jones J, Schmidt F, Hampel C, et al. Single center comparison of anastomotic strictures after radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2010;76:417-22. [CrossRef] 12. Albayrak S, Canguven O, Goktas C, Cetinel C, Horuz R, Aydemir H. Radical perineal prostatectomy and early continence: outcomes after 120 cases. Int Braz J Urol 2010;36:693-9. [CrossRef] 13. Kafkaslı A, Boz MY, Balaban M, Horuz R, Selimoğlu A, Albayrak S, et al. The effects of retropubic and perineal radical prostatectomy techniques on urinary continence after surgery: Results of 196 patients. Turkish Journal of Urology 2013;39:147-52. [CrossRef] 14. Prasad SM, Gu X, Lavelle R, Lipsitz SR, Hu JC. Comparative effectiveness of perineal versus retropubic and minimally in