Premium
A comparison of radical retropubic with perineal prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer within the Uniformed Services Urology Research Group
Author(s) -
Lance R.S.,
Freidrichs P.A.,
Kane C.,
Powell C.R.,
Pulos E.,
Moul J.W.,
Mcleod D.G.,
Cornum R.L.,
Brantley Thrasher J.
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
bju international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 1464-4096
DOI - 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.00023.x
Subject(s) - medicine , radical retropubic prostatectomy , prostatectomy , urology , prostate cancer , stage (stratigraphy) , prostate , complication , biopsy , pathological , biochemical recurrence , prostate specific antigen , surgery , cancer , paleontology , biology
Objective To review and compare the outcome of patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) or radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) for clinically localized prostate cancer. Patients and methods From 1988 to 1997, 1382 men who were treated by RRP and 316 by RPP were identified from databases of the Uniformed Services Urology Research Group. The following variables were assessed; age, race, prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) level before surgery, clinical stage, biopsy Gleason sum, estimated blood loss (EBL), margin‐positive rate, pathological stage, biochemical recurrence rate, short and long‐term complication rates, impotence and incontinence rates. To eliminate selection bias, the analysis was concentrated on pairs of patients matched by race, preoperative PSA level, clinical stage and biopsy Gleason sum. Results In the 190 matched patients there were no significant differences between the RRP and RPP groups in either organ‐confined (57% vs 55%), margin‐positive (39% vs 43%), or biochemical recurrence rates (12.9% vs 17.6% at a mean follow‐up of 47.1 vs 42.9 months), respectively. The mean EBL was 1575 mL in the RRP group and 802 mL in the RPP group ( P < 0.001). The only significant difference in complication rates was a higher incidence of rectal injury in the RPP group (4.9%) than in the RRP group (none, P < 0.05). Conclusions In similar populations of patients, RPP offers equivalent organ‐confined, margin‐positive and biochemical recurrence rates to RRP, while causing significantly less blood loss.