Prospective Comparison of Scar-related Satisfaction and Quality of Life After Laparoscopic Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy: No Differences from Patients' Point of View

Overview

Journal World J Urol

Specialty Urology

Date 2012 Apr 7

PMID 22481294

Citations 1

Authors

Nicolas Barry Delongchamps

Olivier Belas

Djillali Saighi

Marc Zerbib

Michael Peyromaure

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate and compare scar-related satisfaction in patients treated with open (ORP) versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).

Patients And Method: We prospectively included all patients treated with ORP and LRP in our department between March and June 2010. Scar-related outcomes were collected at 1 and 3 months postoperatively. Three months after surgery, all patients filled up a questionnaire concerning their scar-related symptoms, scar self-consciousness and satisfaction. These variables were statistically compared between the two groups.

Results: A total of 101 patients were included for analysis. Of them, 48, 49 and 4 were treated with LRP, ORP and LRP converted to ORP, respectively. Age distribution was not statistically different between groups. Postoperatively, 5 patients experienced skin infection on their scar site, 2 in the ORP and 3 in the LRP group. The most frequently reported symptom was scar itching, that was more frequent after LRP, although difference was not significant (33 vs. 19%, p = 0.2). According to patient scar-related consciousness, satisfaction and impact on quality of life, no differences were reported between groups. Impact on quality of life was insignificant in 27 (55%) versus 21 (44%) patients after ORP and LRP, respectively (p = 0.3).

Conclusion: With an overall low impact on satisfaction and quality of life, scars gendered by LRP and ORP were not different from patients' point of view. In patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, the cosmetic aspect of scars does not seem to be a concern.

Citing Articles

Retropubic, laparoscopic and mini-laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of patient scar satisfaction.

Quattrone C, Cicione A, Oliveira C, Autorino R, Cantiello F, Mirone V World J Urol. 2014; 33(8):1181-7.

PMID: 25344897 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-014-1425-z.

References

Roumeguere T, Bollens R, Vanden Bossche M, Rochet D, Bialek D, Hoffman P . Radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of oncological and functional results between open and laparoscopic approaches. World J Urol. 2003; 20(6):360-6. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-002-0306-z. View

Krambeck A, DiMarco D, Rangel L, Bergstralh E, Myers R, Blute M . Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques. BJU Int. 2008; 103(4):448-53. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08012.x. View

Nelson B, Kaufman M, Broughton G, Cookson M, Chang S, Herrell S . Comparison of length of hospital stay between radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2007; 177(3):929-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.070. View

Namiki S, Egawa S, Baba S, Terachi T, Usui Y, Terai A . Recovery of quality of life in year after laparoscopic or retropubic radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional longitudinal study. Urology. 2005; 65(3):517-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.09.065. View

Guazzoni G, Cestari A, Naspro R, Riva M, Centemero A, Zanoni M . Intra- and peri-operative outcomes comparing radical retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: results from a prospective, randomised, single-surgeon study. Eur Urol. 2006; 50(1):98-104. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.02.051. View

Rumsey N, Clarke A, Musa M . Altered body image: the psychosocial needs of patients. Br J Community Nurs. 2002; 7(11):563-6. DOI: 10.12968/bjcn.2002.7.11.10886. View

Durani P, McGrouther D, Ferguson M . The Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire: a reliable and valid patient-reported outcomes measure for linear scars. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009; 123(5):1481-1489. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181a205de. View

Namiki S, Egawa S, Terachi T, Matsubara A, Igawa M, Terai A . Changes in quality of life in first year after radical prostatectomy by retropubic, laparoscopic, and perineal approach: Multi-institutional longitudinal study in Japan. Urology. 2006; 67(2):321-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.09.004. View

Brown B, McKenna S, Siddhi K, McGrouther D, Bayat A . The hidden cost of skin scars: quality of life after skin scarring. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2008; 61(9):1049-58. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2008.03.020. View

10.

Brown B, McKenna S, Solomon M, Wilburn J, McGrouther D, Bayat A . The patient-reported impact of scars measure: development and validation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010; 125(5):1439-1449. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181d4fd89. View

11.

Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A, Graefen M . Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2009; 55(5):1037-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.01.036. View

12.

Jurczok A, Zacharias M, Wagner S, Hamza A, Fornara P . Prospective non-randomized evaluation of four mediators of the systemic response after extraperitoneal laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2007; 99(6):1461-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06849.x. View

13.

Herrmann T, Rabenalt R, Stolzenburg J, Liatsikos E, Imkamp F, Tezval H . Oncological and functional results of open, robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does surgical approach and surgical experience matter?. World J Urol. 2007; 25(2):149-60. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-007-0164-9. View