Radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: the perineal approach increases the risk of surgically induced positive margins and capsular incisions.

[1]  R. Cornum,et al.  Influence of surgical approach on cancer control following radical prostatectomy. , 1996, Urologic oncology.

[2]  M. Resnick.  Radical prostatectomy: the perineal approach. , 1996, Urology.

[3]  H. Neuwirth,et al.  Patterns of positive specimen margins and detectable prostate specific antigen after radical perineal prostatectomy. , 1995, The Journal of urology.

[4]  M. Toublanc,et al.  Perineal versus retropubic radical prostatectomy for T1, T2 prostate cancer. , 1994, British journal of urology.

[5]  J. Cummings,et al.  The value of laparoscopic lymphadenectomy in conjunction with radical perineal or retropubic prostatectomy. , 1994, The Journal of urology.

[6]  P. Scardino,et al.  Frequency and location of extracapsular extension and positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. , 1992, The Journal of urology.

[7]  D. Paulson,et al.  Radical prostatectomy: the pros and cons of the perineal versus retropubic approach. , 1992, The Journal of urology.

[8]  T. Stamey,et al.  Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy: importance of the apical dissection. , 1990, The Journal of urology.

[9]  R. Gibbons,et al.  Total prostatectomy for clinically localized prostatic cancer: long-term results. , 1989, The Journal of urology.

[10]  T. Stamey,et al.  Morphometric and clinical studies on 68 consecutive radical prostatectomies. , 1988, The Journal of urology.

[11]  P. Dahm,et al.  Radical perineal prostatectomy. , 1980 .

[12]  P. Walsh,et al.  Radical Surgery for Prostatic Cancer , 1980, Cancer.