Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M et al (2008) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 53:68–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bandhauer K, Senn E (1988) Radical retropubic prostatectomy after transurethral prostatic resection. Eur Urol 15:180–181

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Colombo R, Naspro R, Salonia A et al (2006) Radical prostatectomy after previous prostate surgery: clinical and functional outcomes. J Urol 176:2459–2463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming IR et al (2002) AJCC cancer staging manual, 6th edn. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Salomon L, Sebe P, De La Taille A et al (2004) Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: part I. BJU Int 94:238–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Salomon L, Sebe P, De La Taille A et al (2004) Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: part II. BJU Int 94:244–250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Greco.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1036-0

Keywords

Navigation