Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: oncological and functional results after 700 procedures.

PURPOSE We review our experience with endoscopic (totally) extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE) as first line therapy for localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 700 consecutive patients underwent EERPE. Mean patient age was 63.4 years (range 42 to 77). Mean preoperative prostate specific antigen was 10.7 ng/ml (range 1.4 to 82). A total of 206 patients (29.4%) had a history of previous lower abdominal or pelvic surgery including inguinal hernioplasty with mesh placement and 43 patients (6.1%) had a history of prostatic intervention (transurethral resection of the prostate, high intensity focused ultrasound, Millin prostatectomy, radiotherapy). After preparation of the preperitoneal space the technique of EERPE duplicates the steps of classic open descending retropubic radical prostatectomy including a nerve sparing EERPE when indicated. RESULTS Mean operative time was 151 minutes (range 50 to 320). There was no conversion and the transfusion rate was 0.9% in 6. Four patients (0.6%) had intraoperative rectal injuries which were treated endoscopically with a 2-layer suture. A total of 14 patients (2%) required early and 3 patients (0.4%) required late postoperative reintervention. Pathological stage was pT2a in 89 patients (12.7%), pT2b in 54 (7.7%), pT2c in 245 (35%), pT3a in 229 (32.7%), pT3b in 79 (11.2%) and pT4 in 4 patients (0.6%). Positive surgical margins were found in 10.8% (42 of 388) of patients with a pT2 tumor and in 31.2% (96 of 308) of patients with a pT3 tumor. Pelvic lymph node dissection was performed in 266 patients (38%), of whom 14 (5.3%) were found to have lymph node involvement. Mean catheterization time was 6.2 days. Six months after surgery 83.8% of the patients were completely continent, 10.4% needed 1 to 2 pads daily and 5.8% of patients needed more than 2 pads daily. Of all patients who underwent nerve sparing procedures, 100 patients had a postoperative followup of 6 months. Of the 66 patients with the unilateral nerve sparing approach 8 (12.1%) had erections sufficient for intercourse and 16 of 34 patients (47.1%) with the bilateral nerve sparing procedure had erections sufficient for intercourse with or without the help of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS The results of this series are promising. Perioperative morbidity is low, and short-term oncological and functional results are favorable. Although the followup is too short to draw definite conclusions, it is obvious that a nerve sparing approach in EERPE is feasible and reproducible. Our data demonstrate that EERPE can be performed with equal efficacy and results compared with laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomy, while providing the ease and safety of a totally extraperitoneal approach, completely avoiding intraperitoneal complications.

[1]  B. Guillonneau,et al.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[2]  L. Ronningen.  Campbell's Urology, 8th ed , 2005 .

[3]  W. Catalona,et al.  Potency, continence and complications in 3,477 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. , 2004, The Journal of urology.

[4]  D. Teber,et al.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: functional and oncological outcomes , 2004, Current opinion in urology.

[5]  I. Gill,et al.  Laparoscopic prostatectomy: a promising option in the treatment of prostate cancer. , 2004, Cleveland Clinic journal of medicine.

[6]  L. Gomella,et al.  Pathologic comparison of laparoscopic versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens. , 2003, Urology.

[7]  C. Abbou,et al.  Radical retropubic versus laparoscopic prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of functional outcome. , 2003, Urology.

[8]  C. Stief,et al.  Evolution of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE)—technical improvements and development of a nerve-sparing, potency-preserving approach , 2003, World Journal of Urology.

[9]  R. Rabenalt,et al.  Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: initial experience after 70 procedures. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[10]  J. Stolzenburg,et al.  Technique of laparoscopic (endoscopic) radical prostatectomy , 2003, BJU international.

[11]  Dogu Teber,et al.  Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[12]  G Vallancien,et al.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological evaluation after 1,000 cases a Montsouris Institute. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[13]  A. Haese*,et al.  Patient-reported sexual function after nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. , 2002, European urology.

[14]  G Vallancien,et al.  Complications of transperitoneal laparoscopic surgery in urology: review of 1,311 procedures at a single center. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[15]  J. Stolzenburg,et al.  The endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): technique and initial experience , 2002, World Journal of Urology.

[16]  B. Guillonneau,et al.  Perioperative complications of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris 3-year experience. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[17]  S. Loening,et al.  [Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Experiences with 145 interventions]. , 2001, Der Urologe. Ausg. A.

[18]  B. Guillonneau,et al.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 240 procedures. , 2001, The Urologic clinics of North America.

[19]  P. Walsh,et al.  Radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer provides durable cancer control with excellent quality of life: a structured debate. , 2000, The Journal of urology.

[20]  M. Soloway,et al.  Incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. , 1998, The Journal of urology.