Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Radical perineal prostatectomy: a learning curve?

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

Abstract

Objective

To determine a learning curve for radical perineal prostatectomy after formal training in radical retropubic prostatectomy.

Methods

Using the William Beaumont Hospital Prostatectomy database, we analyzed peri-operative data from two surgeons performing radical perineal prostatectomies from their initial 96 cases to determine a learning curve.

Results

Over time, data between the first and last quarters showed consistent, excellent results in terms of skin time (143 SD ± 22 and 136 SD ± 24 min), blood loss (310 SD ± 120 and 335 ± 216 cc), and length of stay (1.3 SD ± 0.6 and 1.2 SD ± 0.5 days), without significant change. However, only two positive margins were obtained in the 4th quartile representing a significant change and possibly representing a learning curve.

Conclusions

These data show that excellent, reproducible results can be obtained using basic surgical principles, without incorporating expensive technology and resources.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Herrell SD (2005) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: what is the learning curve? Urology 66(5 suppl):105–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Harris MJ (2003) Radical perineal prostatectomy: cost efficient, outcome effective, minimally invasive prostate cancer management. Eur Urol 44(3):303–308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Harris MJ (1996) The anatomic radical perineal prostatectomy: a contemporary and anatomic approach. Urology 48(5):762–768

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Levy DA, Resnick MI (1994) Laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy and radical perineal prostatectomy: a viable alternative to radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 151(4):905–908

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gillitzer R (2004) Specific complications of radical perineal prostatectomy: a single institution study of more than 600 cases. J Urol 172(1):124–128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Frazier HA (1992) Radical prostatectomy: the pros and cons of the perineal versus retropubic approach. J Urol 147(3 Pt 2):888–890

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI, USA

    Fadi Eliya, Ken Kernen, Jose Gonzalez, Ken Peters, Ibrahim Ibrahim & Kaylyn Petzel

Authors
  1. Fadi Eliya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ken Kernen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jose Gonzalez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ken Peters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ibrahim Ibrahim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kaylyn Petzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fadi Eliya.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eliya, F., Kernen, K., Gonzalez, J. et al. Radical perineal prostatectomy: a learning curve?. Int Urol Nephrol 43, 139–142 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-010-9781-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-010-9781-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation