Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Surgical margins in radical prostatectomy: a comparison between retropubic and laparoscopic surgery

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To compare positive surgical margins in both radical retropubic prostatectomies and laparoscopic surgery in two reference centres in Brazil.

Materials and methods

One hundred and seventy nine pathological studies from patients, who underwent radical prostatectomy due to prostate adenocarcinoma, 89 submitted to retropubic surgery and 90 to laparoscopic surgery, were analyzed. Inclusion criteria

Patients with PSA ≤15 ng/ml, and a Gleason score ≤7 at the prostate biopsy, maximum T2 clinical staging.

Results

There has been surgical margin compromising in 41.57% of the patients submitted to retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), 34.21% of which were at pT2 stage and 84.61% were at pT3 stage. In patients submitted to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) positive surgical margin was found at 24.44% of the cases: 20.98% of which were at pT2 stage and 55.55% at pT3 stage.

Conclusions

In the analyzed samples, proportion of positive surgical margin was higher in RRP than in LRP (P = 0.023). A higher number of patients on a randomized prospective study would be necessary for a better comparison between the groups.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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. Epstein JI (2001) Radical prostatectomy: pathologic assessment of the surgical specimen Urol Clin North Am 28(3):567–594

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Internacional Union Against Cancer (2002) TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. 6th edn. In: Sobin LH, Wittekind Ch (ed), Geneva pp 184–187

  3. Wieder JA, Soloway MS (1998) Incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer J Urol 160(2):299–315

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Vallancien G, Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Baumert H, Doublet JD (2002) Localized prostatic cancer: treatment with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: study with 841 cases Bull Acad Natl Med 186(1):117–123

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Guillonneau B, El-Fettouh H, Baumert H, Cathelineau X, Doublet JD, Fromont G et al (2003) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological evaluation after 1,000 cases at Montsouris Institute J Urol 169:1261–1266

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Trabulsi EJ, Guillonneau B (2005) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy J Urol 173:1072–1079

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rassweiler J, Schulze M, Teber D, Marrero R, Seemann O, Rumpelt J et al (2005) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique: oncological results in the first 500 patients J Urol 173:761–764

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cathelineau X, Cahill D, Widmer H, Rozet F, Baumert H, Vallancien G (2004) Transperitoneal or extraperitoneal approach for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a false debate over a real challenge J Urol 171:714–716

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Brown JA, Garlitz C, Gomella LG, Hubosky SG, Diamond SM, McGinnis D et al (2003) Pathologic comparison of laparoscopic versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens. Urology 62:481–486

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tse E, Knaus R (2004) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy—results of 200 consecutive cases in a Canadian medical institution. Can J Urol 11(2):2172–2185

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Katz R, Salomon L, Hoznek A, Taille A, Antiphon P, Abbou CC (2003) Positive surgical margins in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the impact of apical dissection, bladder neck remodeling and nerve preservation J Urol 169:2049–2052

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urology Department, State University of Campinas (Unicamp), Av Andrade Neves, 784-1° andar, Campinas, 13013-161, Brazil

    Elcio Silva, Ubirajara Ferreira, Gustavo D. Silva, Mirandolino B. Mariano, Nelson R. Netto Jr., Athanase Billis & Luis A. Magna

Authors
  1. Elcio Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ubirajara Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gustavo D. Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mirandolino B. Mariano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nelson R. Netto Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Athanase Billis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Luis A. Magna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elcio Silva.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Silva, E., Ferreira, U., Silva, G.D. et al. Surgical margins in radical prostatectomy: a comparison between retropubic and laparoscopic surgery. Int Urol Nephrol 39, 865–869 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-006-9128-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-006-9128-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation