» Articles » PMID: 19648935

Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Oncological and Functional Results of 126 Patients with a Minimum 3-year Follow-up at a Single Chinese Institute

Overview
Journal Asian J Androl
Specialty Urology
Date 2009 Aug 4
PMID 19648935
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In this study we evaluate the oncological and functional results of the largest cohort of patients in China treated by laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and with at least 3 years of follow-up. 126 inconsecutive patients (range 56-78 years, median 62.5) who had an LRP were retrospectively analyzed. The mean prostate specific antigen level and Gleason score was 13.4 ng mL(-1) and 6.4, respectively. Twenty-seven patients had unilateral or bilateral nerve preservation and 29 had pelvic lymphadenectomy. Multivariate analysis was used to adjust for differences in clinical and pathological features when comparing the risk for biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS). Urinary continence was assessed by incontinence questionnaire and erectile function by the Sexual Health Inventory for Men score. The mean operative duration was 250 min and blood loss 354 mL. Five patients received blood transfusion and nine had complications, including rectal injury (two), ureteral injury (one), active bleeding (one), bladder neck stenosis (two), paralytic ileus (one), subcutaneous hematoma (one) and port-site hernia (one). The overall positive surgical margin rate was 20.6% and correlated with pathological stage and Gleason score respectively (P = 0.03, P < 0.001 respectively). All patients had >or= 3 years of follow-up (range 3-6.75 years, mean 4.6, median 4.75). At 3 years of follow-up, the overall survival rate was 100% and the bPFS was 81.0% in all patients; 124 patients (98.4%) were continent; 22 of 27 patients (81.5%) who underwent nerve preservation retained erectile function. Our series confirms that LRP is an effective, safe and precise technique at Chinese institution.

Citing Articles

Incidence of Rectal Injury After Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Romito I, Giannarini G, Rossanese M, Mucciardi G, Simonato A, Ficarra V Eur Urol Open Sci. 2023; 52:85-99.

PMID: 37213241 PMC: 10192923. DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.03.017.


Outcomes of radical prostatectomy in a 20-year localized prostate cancer single institution series in China.

Ruan X, Chun T, Huang D, Wong H, Sze-Ho Ho B, Tsang C Asian J Androl. 2022; 25(3):345-349.

PMID: 36124535 PMC: 10226499. DOI: 10.4103/aja202264.


Continuous suture of a single absorbable suture: a new simplified vesicourethral anastomosis technique in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Yang J, Shao P, Lv Q, Song N, Li J, Zhang W Int Surg. 2014; 99(5):656-61.

PMID: 25216438 PMC: 4253941. DOI: 10.9738/INTSURG-D-13-00124.1.


Risk prediction models for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy using prostate-specific antigen and Gleason score.

Hu X, Cammann H, Meyer H, Jung K, Lu H, Leva N Asian J Androl. 2014; 16(6):897-901.

PMID: 25130472 PMC: 4236336. DOI: 10.4103/1008-682X.129940.


Younger patients have poorer biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer.

Hong S, Nam J, Na W, Oh J, Yoon C, Jeong C Asian J Androl. 2011; 13(5):719-23.

PMID: 21706038 PMC: 3739588. DOI: 10.1038/aja.2011.39.


References
1.
El-Feel A, Davis J, Deger S, Roigas J, Wille A, Schnorr D . Positive margins after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective study of 100 cases performed by 4 different surgeons. Eur Urol. 2003; 43(6):622-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0302-2838(03)00148-9. View

2.
Swindle P, Eastham J, Ohori M, Kattan M, Wheeler T, Maru N . Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2005; 174(3):903-7. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000169475.00949.78. View

3.
Gu F . Epidemiological survey of benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostatic cancer in China. Chin Med J (Engl). 2002; 113(4):299-302. View

4.
Chan J, Jou R, Carroll P . The relative impact and future burden of prostate cancer in the United States. J Urol. 2004; 172(5 Pt 2):S13-6. View

5.
Ward J, Zincke H, Bergstralh E, Slezak J, Myers R, Blute M . The impact of surgical approach (nerve bundle preservation versus wide local excision) on surgical margins and biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2004; 172(4 Pt 1):1328-32. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000138681.64035.dc. View