Perineal versus retropubic radical prostatectomy for T1, T2 prostate cancer

Haab, F.; Boccon-Gibod, L; Delmas, V.; Boccon-Gibod, L; Toublanc, M.

doi:10.1111/j.1464-410x.1994.tb09195.x

Cited by 57 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the RPP's in this study were not performed by surgeons experienced in this technique. In other studies utilizing data from surgeons with significant experience in the RPP technique, positive margin rates and iatrogenic positive margin rates are similar to those reported for RRP (20).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Case selection and outcome of radical perineal prostatectomy in localized prostate cancer

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radical prostatectomy continues to play a central role in the management of localized prostate cancer. The majority of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer will undergo radical prostatectomy. A decrease in the morbidity of this surgical procedure has been accomplished through an improved understanding of pelvic anatomy and a greater understanding of the natural history of prostate cancer. Recently, minimally invasive techniques have been applied to radical prostatectomy (laparoscopic prostatectomy) in order to further decrease the morbidity of this operation. What remains to be determined is whether this approach confers the same long term surgical outcomes as the open approach. One method which offers known long term outcomes coupled with decreased morbidity is the radical perineal prostatectomy. The purpose of this paper is to review the criteria for patient selection as well as outcomes of the radical perineal prostatectomy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

“…A smaller study by Haab et al compared 71 patients who underwent either RRP (36 patients) or RPP (35 patients) for clinically localized cancer of the prostate (20). In this study, patients were matched by their preoperative data including PSA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Case selection and outcome of radical perineal prostatectomy in localized prostate cancer

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Abdominal CT-scan and bone scintigraphy were performed if total PSA >10 ng/ml. We used as exclusion criteria for perineal prostatectomy a prostate weight >80 g, a prominent median lobe and the inability to place the patient in an exaggerated lithotomy position because of hip arthrosis, ankylosis, and/or severe coxarthrosis [17][18][19][20]. Condition for not including patients in the study was severe erectile dysfunction (IIEF-15 score <18) preoperatively.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retropubic versus perineal radical prostatectomy in early prostate cancer: Eight‐year experience

Martis

Diana

Ombres

et al. 2007

Journal of Surgical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The reports of patients who are pad-free at 1 year, with similar scores on urinary domains (function and bother), allay concerns that RPP might not produce equivalent continence rates. Haab et al [27] compared continence at 3 and 6 months after prostatectomy between 36 patients undergoing RRP and 35 RPP. Their ®ndings suggest that the latter were slower to regain full continence than the former, but in the long-term the continence rates between groups were comparable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of the relative merits of radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy

Sullivan

Weir²,

Kinahan

et al. 2000

BJU International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To compare the outcome, advantages and disadvantages of retropubic and perineal approach to radical prostatectomy, as performed by one surgeon. Patients and methods This unrandomized study included 138 patients who underwent either radical retropubic (RRP) or radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP), based on the speci®c conditions or the patient's choice; 79 patients (mean age 64.6 years) underwent RPP and 59 (mean age 61.7 years) RRP. Outcome measures included estimated blood loss, the incidence of blood transfusions, positive margins and complications, operative duration, analgesic use, days in hospital and quality of life. Results There was no difference in operative duration, and the incidence of positive margins or complications between the groups. The mean estimated blood loss in the RPP and RRP groups was 415 and 1138 mL, respectively. The RPP group stayed a mean of 2.2 days less in hospital and took 2.8 days less to regain a full diet than the RRP group; the RPP group needed 1.7 days before using oral analgesics and the RRP group 3.8 days. Of patients in both groups, 85% were pad-free at one year and their overall quality of life was similar. Conclusions The results of RRP and RPP are comparable; the advantages of the perineal approach include minimal blood loss, low-intensity postoperative nursing care, low analgesic use and earlier discharge from hospital.

show abstract

Perineal versus retropubic radical prostatectomy for T1, T2 prostate cancer

Abstract: When nodal status has been assessed by lymph node dissection (open or endosurgical), radical perineal prostatectomy is a reasonable, minimally invasive alternative to radical retropubic prostatectomy provided that impotence and a slower return to full continence are accepted.

Cited by 57 publications

References 14 publications

Case selection and outcome of radical perineal prostatectomy in localized prostate cancer

Case selection and outcome of radical perineal prostatectomy in localized prostate cancer

Retropubic versus perineal radical prostatectomy in early prostate cancer: Eight‐year experience

A comparison of the relative merits of radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About