» Articles » PMID: 25516703

Impact of Cosmetic Result on Selection of Surgical Treatment in Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer

Overview
Journal JSLS
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2014 Dec 18
PMID 25516703
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To analyze the effect of cosmetic outcome as an isolated variable in patients undergoing surgical treatment based on the incision used in the 3 variants of radical prostatectomy: open (infraumbilical incision and Pfannestiel incision) and laparoscopic, or robotic (6 ports) surgery.

Patients And Methods: 612 male patients 40 to 70 years of age with a negative history of prostate disease were invited to participate. Each patient was evaluated by questionnaire accompanied by a set of 6 photographs showing the cosmetic appearance of the 3 approaches, with and without undergarments. Participants ranked the approaches according to preference, on the basis of cosmesis. We also recorded demographic variables: age, body mass index, marital status, education level, and physical activity.

Results: Of the 577 patients who completed the questionnaries, the 6-port minimally invasive approach represents the option preferred by 52% of the participants, followed by the Pfannestiel incision (46%), and the infraumbilical incision (11%), respectively. The univariate and multivariate analyses did not show statistically significant differences when comparing the approach preferred by the patients and the sub-analyses for demographic variables, except for patients who exercised who preferred the Pfannestiel incision (58%) instead of minimally invasive approach (42%) with statistically significant differences.

Conclusion: The minimally invasive approach was the approach of choice for the majority of patients in the treatment of prostate cancer. The Pfannestiel incision represents an acceptable alternative. More research and investment may be necesary to improve cosmetic outcomes.

Citing Articles

Impact of Robotic Technologies on Prostate Cancer Patients' Choice for Radical Treatment.

Esperto F, Cacciatore L, Tedesco F, Testa A, Calle P, Ragusa A J Pers Med. 2023; 13(5).

PMID: 37240964 PMC: 10220733. DOI: 10.3390/jpm13050794.


Robotic Surgical System for Radical Prostatectomy: A Health Technology Assessment.

Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2017; 17(11):1-172.

PMID: 28744334 PMC: 5515322.


Patient driven care in the management of prostate cancer: analysis of the United States military healthcare system.

Chaudhary M, Leow J, Mossanen M, Chowdhury R, Jiang W, Learn P BMC Urol. 2017; 17(1):56.

PMID: 28693554 PMC: 5504736. DOI: 10.1186/s12894-017-0247-x.

References
1.
Guillonneau B, Vallancien G . Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris experience. J Urol. 2000; 163(2):418-22. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(05)67890-1. View

2.
Soulie M, Vazzoler N, Seguin P, Attalah F, Pontonnier F, Plante P . [Pfannenstiel short horizontal laparotomy in retropubic radical prostatectomy]. Prog Urol. 2001; 10(6):1169-72. View

3.
Marshall F, Chan D, Partin A, Gurganus R, Hortopan S . Minilaparotomy radical retropubic prostatectomy: technique and results. J Urol. 1998; 160(6 Pt 2):2440-5. DOI: 10.1097/00005392-199812020-00014. View

4.
Walsh P, Lepor H, Eggleston J . Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations. Prostate. 1983; 4(5):473-85. DOI: 10.1002/pros.2990040506. View

5.
Anastasiadis A, Salomon L, Katz R, Hoznek A, Chopin D, Abbou C . Radical retropubic versus laparoscopic prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of functional outcome. Urology. 2003; 62(2):292-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(03)00352-2. View