Premium
Laparoscopic vs open retropubic intrafascial nerve‐sparing radical prostatectomy: surgical and functional outcomes in 300 patients
Author(s) -
Greco Francesco,
Wagner Sigrid,
Hoda M. Raschid,
Kawan Felix,
Inferrera Antonino,
Lupo Antonio,
Reichelt Olaf,
Jurczok Andreas,
Hamza Amir,
Fornara Paolo
Publication year - 2010
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 - 10.1111/j.1464-410x.2009.09157.x
Subject(s) - medicine , radical retropubic prostatectomy , prostatectomy , laparoscopic radical prostatectomy , surgery , nerve sparing , urology , prostate , cancer
Study Type – Therapy (case series)
Level of Evidence 4 OBJECTIVE To evaluate the surgical and functional outcomes in nerve‐sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (nsLRP) and retropubic nsRP (nsRRP). PATIENTS AND METHODS Between January 2005 and November 2007, 150 nsLRP and 150 nsRRP were performed at our clinic. Demographic data, variables before and after surgery, and outcomes, were compared. RESULTS The operative duration was 165 min for nsLRP and 120 min for nsRRP. Although the nsLRP group had a lower frequency of positive margins, the difference was not statistically significant. At 1 year after surgery, complete continence was reported in 97% of patients who had nsLRP and in 91% who had nsRRP ( P = 0.03). At that time, 66% of patients in the nsLRP and 51% in the nsRRP group reported being able to engage in sexual intercourse ( P < 0.05). There were no statistical differences in surgical trauma in both groups. CONCLUSION Our study showed that nsLRP performed by expert surgeons results in better functional outcomes for continence and potency than for nsRRP. There was no significant difference between the surgical techniques in surgical trauma.