Prospective comparison of one year follow-up outcomes for the open complete intrafascial retropubic versus interfascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy - Abstract

Current work provides a prospective direct comparison between Open complete intrafascial-radical-prostatectomy (OIF-RP) and interfascial-RP in all outcomes in single centre series.

Both techniques were done prospectively in 430 patients. Inclusion criteria for OIF-RP (n=241 patients) were biopsy Gleason-score ≤ 6 and PSA ≤ 10 ng/ml while for interfascial-RP (n=189) were Gleason-score ≤7 and PSA ≤ 15. The perioperative parameters (e.g. operative time, complications etc.), pathologic results, surgical margins and revisions were reviewed. Pre- and postoperative (3 and 12 months) evaluation of continence and potency was performed. All patients have preoperative IIEF-score of ≥15. Continence was classified as complete (no pads), mild (1-2 pads/day) and incontinence (>2 pads/day). Median patients' age was 63.7 vs. 64.5 years for OIF-RP vs. Interfascial-RP, respectively. Preoperative PSA-level was significantly lower in OIF-RP (5.8 vs. 7.1), otherwise, similar perioperative data in both groups except for more frequent pT3-tumors in interfascial-RP group (18%). No statistical significance regarding continence was observed between OIF-RP vs. Interfascial-RP groups at 3 (82% vs. 85%) and 12 months (98% vs. 96%) postoperatively. Potency rates (IIEF ≥15) after OIF-RP were 96% (≤ 55 years), 72% (55-65), and 75% (>65 years) at 12 months. The respective rates for interfascial-group were 58%, 61% and 51%. There was an advantage for OIF-RP potency-outcomes without significance over Interfascial-RP in weak potency patients (IIEF=15-18). We conclude that OIF-RP is associated with better functional results without compromising early oncological results compared to interfascial-RP. Complete preservation of periprostatic fasciae provides significantly better postoperative recovery of sexual function even for weak potency patients. Longer follow-up is mandatory to further evaluate the outcome results of this technique.

Written by:
Khoder WY, Waidelich R, Buchner A, Becker AJ, Stief CG.   Are you the author?
Department of Urology, University Hospital Munich-Grosshadern, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Marchioninistrasse 15, 81377 Munich, Germany.

Reference: Springerplus. 2014 Jul 1;3:335.
doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-3-335.


PubMed Abstract
PMID: 25032093

UroToday.com Prostate Cancer Section

 

 

E-Newsletters

Newsletter subscription

Free Daily and Weekly newsletters offered by content of interest

The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are rapidly advancing. Sign up today for articles, videos, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.

Subscribe