Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: preliminary results

Abbou, C.C.; Salomon, Laurent; Hoznek, Andràs; Antiphon, Patrick; Cicco, Antony; Saint, F.; Alame, Walid; Bellot, J; Chopin, Dominique

doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(00)00502-1

Cited by 344 publications

(136 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

120

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Since this first description the technique has been modified and refined. Groups in France refined the technique and reduced the mean operative duration to 3-4 h [2,3]. Raboy et al [4] reported the first case of radical retropubic prostatectomy through an entirely extraperitoneal endoscopic approach (EERPE).…”

Section: Technique Of Laparoscopic (Endoscopic) Radical Prostatectomymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Technique of laparoscopic (endoscopic) radical prostatectomy

Stolzenburg

Truß

2003

BJU International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYDuring the last decade laparoscopy has become a standard technique available to the urologist, through constant technological advances and refinements. The progress of laparoscopic/endoscopic techniques allows the indications for this surgery to include complex oncological procedures like radical prostatectomy. Since the first description of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in the early 1990s the technique has undergone significant technical modifications. Transperitoneal LRP is now a standard procedure and can be used successfully and reproducibly, giving results comparable with those from the open retropubic procedure. Despite many advantages, transperitoneal laparoscopy is associated with potential intraperitoneal complications. Because of the limitations inherent in the transperitoneal route, a totally extraperitoneal endoscopic radical prostatectomy (EERPE) has been developed. The totally extraperitoneal endoscopic access provides a safe and minimally invasive approach to various urological procedures, including prostatectomy. This technical improvement completely obviates intra‐abdominal complications. EERPE combines the advantages of minimally invasive laparoscopy and the open retropubic approach. We review the surgical techniques of LRP and EERPE, and highlight the indications, contraindications and outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Technique Of Laparoscopic (Endoscopic) Radical Prostatectomymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…No staples or sutures are necessary for fixing the mesh; the mesh is anchored and fixed to the abdominal wall by intra-abdominal pressure alone. (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7). With permission from [8].…”

Section: Endoscopic Prostatectomy and Concomitant Hernia Repairmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technique of laparoscopic (endoscopic) radical prostatectomy

Stolzenburg

Truß

2003

BJU International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At present there are several definitive surgical options for managing clinically localized prostate cancer, including radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic RP (LRP), and robot-assisted RP (RARP) [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. Given the novelty and interest in minimally invasive/ minimal access options, studies comparing the laparoscopic approaches to RRP have been published [5,7,[12][13][14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot‐assisted techniques

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVETo assess the perioperative complications and early oncological results in a comparative study matching open radical retropubic (RRP) and robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) groups.PATIENTS AND METHODSFrom August 2002 to December 2005 we identified 294 patients undergoing RARP for clinically localized prostate cancer. A comparison RRP group of 588 patients from the same period was matched 2:1 for surgical year, age, preoperative prostate‐specific antigen level, clinical stage and biopsy Gleason grade. Perioperative complications were compared. Patients completed a standardized quality‐of‐life questionnaire. Pathological features were assessed and Kaplan‐Meier estimates of biochemical progression‐free survival (PFS) were compared.RESULTSThere was no significant difference in overall perioperative complications between the RARP and RRP groups (8.0% vs 4.8%, P = 0.064). Wound herniation was more common after RARP (1.0% vs none, P = 0.038), and development of bladder neck contracture was more common after RRP (1.2% vs 4.6%; P < 0.018). The hospital stay was less after RARP (29.3% vs 19.4%, P = 0.004, for a stay of 1 day). At the 1‐year follow‐up there was no significant difference in continence (RARP 91.8%, RRP 93.7%, P = 0.344) or potency (RARP 70.0%, RRP 62.8%, P = 0.081) rates. The biochemical PFS was no different between treatments at 3 years (RARP 92.4%, RRP 92.2%; P = 0.69).CONCLUSIONThere was no significant difference in overall early complication, long‐term continence or potency rates between the RARP and RRP techniques. Furthermore, early oncological outcomes were similar, with equivalent margin positivity and PFS between the groups.

show abstract

“…In 1999, 65 patients underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, with a 9% conversion to open surgery [55], and in 2000 Abbou et al [56] reported their experience with 43 men. In the latter study, the mean operative duration was 4.3 h and positive margins were found in 12 patients (28%), which is comparable with the results of Wieder and Soloway [57], who reported an overall rate of positive surgical margins with radical prostatectomy of 28% (5±23% for stage T1a±T2a).…”

Section: Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomymentioning

confidence: 99%