Skip to main content

Funktionelle Ergebnisse unterschiedlicher Operationstechniken der radikalen Prostatektomie

Der Urologe, Ausgabe A volume 42, pages 1196–1202 (2003)Cite this article

Zusammenfassung

Für die Durchführung einer radikalen Prostatektomie zur Therapie des lokalisierten Prostatakarzinoms stehen mit dem offenen retropubischen, der perinealen sowie der laparoskopischen Zugang verschiedene operative Techniken zur Verfügung. Die postoperative Lebensqualität der Patienten wird neben der Tumorkontrolle maßgeblich durch die postoperativen Kontinenz- und Potenzraten bestimmt. In dieser Arbeit werden die Ergebnisse der eigenen Klinik sowie die in der Literatur publizierten Daten zu den einzelnen Operationsverfahren gegenübergestellt.

Abstract

Radical prostatectomy for the treatment of prostate cancer can be performed by various techniques using a retropubic, perineal, or laparoscopic approach. Besides tumor control, the postoperative urinary continence rates and potency rates impact patients' quality of life after radical prostatectomy. This paper shows the results of our own center and compares the data in the literature regarding functional results of radical prostatectomy with respect to various operative techniques.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Literatur

  1. Seitmann H, Mushinski MH, Silverberg F (1995) Probabilities of eventually developing or dying of cancer-United States 1995. Cancer 35: 36

    Google Scholar 

  2. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Gleason DF, Barry MJ (1998) Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280: 975–980

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lepor H, Nieder AM, Ferrandino MN (2001) Intraoperative and postoperative complications of radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1,000 cases. J Urol 166: 1729–1733

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ruiz-Deya G, Davis R, Srivastav SK, Wise A, Thomas R (2001) Outpatient radical prostatectomy: impact of standard perineal approach on outcome. J Urol 166: 581–586

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lance RS, Freidrichs PA, Powell CR et al. (2001) Comparison of radical retropubic with perineal prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer within the Uniformed Services Urology Research Group. BJU-Int 87: 61–65

    Google Scholar 

  6. Augustin H, Hammerer P, Graefen M, Palisaar J, Noldus J, Fernandez S, Huland H (2003) Intraoperative and perioperative morbidity of contemporary radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1243 patients: results of a single center between 1999 and 2002. Eur Urol 43: 113–118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Turk I, Deger IS, Winkelmann B, Roigas J, Schonberger B, Loening SA (2001) Die laparoskopische radikale Prostatektomie. Erfahrungen mit 145 Eingriffen. Urologe A 40: 199–206

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, Guillonneau B, Vallancien G (2003) Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology 60: 864–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Doublet JD, Baumert H, Vallancien G (2002) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 550 procedures. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 43: 123–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hoznek A, Antiphon P, Borkowski T et al. (2003) Assessment of surgical technique and perioperative morbidity associated with extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology 61: 617–622

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Khan MA, Han M, Partin AW, Epstein JI, Walsh PC (2003) Long-term cancer control of radical prostatectomy in men younger than 50 years of age. Urology 62: 86–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Walsh PC (2000) Radikal prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer provides durable cancer control with excellent quality of life: a structurated debate. J Urol 163: 1802–1807

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Iselin CE, Robertson JE, Paulson DF (1999) Radical perineal prostatectomy: Oncological outcome during a 20-year period. J Urol 161: 163–168

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hoznek A, Samadi DB, Salomon L, De-La-Taille A, Olsson LE, Abbou CC (2002) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: published series. Curr Urol Rep 3: 152–158

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Salomon L, Levrel O, Anastasiadis AG et al. (2002) 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 5: 285–290

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Goluboff ET, Saidi JA, Mazer S, Bagiella E, Heitjan DF, Benson MC, Olsson CA (1998) Urinary continence after radical prostatectomy: the Columbia experience. J Urol 159: 1276–1280

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Rogers E, Goad JR, Ohori M, Boone TM, Scardino PT (1996) Risk factors for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 156: 1707–1713

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Michl U, Graefen M, Haese A, Hammerer P, Huland H (2001) Prospective analysis of continence and micturition following nerve sparing and non nerve sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Significant impact of the nerve sparing procedure on continence. J Urol 165 [Suppl]

  19. Kao TC, Cruess DF, Garner D et al. (2000) Multicenter patient self reporting questionnaire on impotence, incontinence and stricture after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 163: 858

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Stanford JL, Feng Z, Hamilton AS et al. (2000) Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. JAMA 283: 354–360

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wei TJ, Dunn RL, Marcovich R, Montie JE, Sanda MG (2000) Prospective assessment of patient reported urinary continence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 164: 744–748

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Catalona WJ, Carvalhal GF, Mager DE, Smith DS (1999) Potency, continence and complication rates in 1870 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol 162: 433–438

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bishoff JT, Motley G, Optenberg SA et al. (1998) Incidence of fecal and urinary incontinence following radical perineal and retropubic prostatectomy in a national population. J Urol 160: 454–458

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dahm P, Silverstein AD, Weizer AZ, Young MD, Vieweg J, Albala DM, Paulson DF (2003) A longitudinal assessment of bowel related symptoms and fecal incontinence following radical perineal prostatectomy. J Urol 169: 2220–2224

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Weldon VE, Tavel FR, Neuwirth HJ (1997) Continence, potency and morbidity after radical perineal prostatectomy. J Urol 158: 1470–1475

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Frazier HA, Robertson JE, Paulson DF (1992) Radical prostatectomy: The pros and cons of the perineal versus retropubic approach. J Urol 147: 888–890

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gray M, Petroni GR, Theodorescu D (1999) Urinary function after radical prostatectomy: a comparison of the retropubic and perineal approaches. Urology 53: 881–890

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Olsson LE, Salomon L, Nadu A, Hoznek A, Cicco A, Saint F, Chopin D, Abbou CC (2001) Prospective patient-reported continence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology 58: 570–572

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Salomon L, Anastasiadis AG, Katz R (2002) Urinary continence and erectile function: a prospective evaluation of functional results after radical laparoscopic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 42: 338–343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Stolzenburg JU, Do M, Rabenalt R, Pfeiffer H, Horn L, Truss MC, Jonas U, Dorschner W (2003) Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: initial experience after 70 procedures. J Urol 169: 2066–2071

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Roumeguere T, Bollens R, Vanden Bossche M et al. (2003) Radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of oncological and functional results between open and laparoscopic approaches. World J Urol 20: 360–366

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rassweiler J, Seemann O, Schulze M, Teber D, Hatzinger M, Frede T (2003) Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. J Urol 169: 1689–1693

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Noldus J, Michl U, Graefen M et al. (2002) Patient-reported sexual function after nerve-sparing retropubic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 42: 118–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Jakse G, Brehmer B, Borchers H, Verger-Kuhnke A, Biesterfeld S (2003) Nerverhaltende perineale Prostatektomie. Urologe A 42: 382–386

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Katz R, Salomon L, Hoznek A, Taille A, Vordos D, Cicco A, Chopin D, Abbou CC (2003) Patient reported sexual function following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 168: 2078–2082

    Google Scholar 

  36. Potosky AL, Legler J, Albertson PC, Stanford JL, Gililand FD, Hamilton AS, Eley JW, Stephenson RA, Harlan LC (2000) Health out comes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Nat Canc Inst 92: 1582–1592

    Google Scholar 

  37. Wei T, Dunn RL, Sandler HM, McLaughlin PU, Montie JE, Litwin MS, Nyquist L, Sanda MG (2002) Comprehensive comparison of health related quality of life after contemporary therapie for localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 20: 557–566

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hara I, Kawabata G, Miyake H, Nakamura I, Hara S, Okada H, Kamidono S (2003) Comparison of quality of life following laparoscopic and open prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 169: 2045–2048

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Urologische Universitätsklinik, Hamburg-Eppendorf

    U. Michl, M. Graefen, J. Noldus, T. Eggert & H. Huland

  2. Klinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Universitätsklinik Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg

    U. Michl

Authors
  1. U. Michl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Graefen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Noldus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. T. Eggert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. H. Huland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to U. Michl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Michl, U., Graefen, M., Noldus, J. et al. Funktionelle Ergebnisse unterschiedlicher Operationstechniken der radikalen Prostatektomie. Urologe [A] 42, 1196–1202 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-003-0431-3

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-003-0431-3

Schlüsselwörter

  • Radikale Prostatektomie
  • Kontinenz
  • Potenz

Keywords

  • Radical prostatectomy
  • Potency
  • Continence