OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative data, pathological results and functional outcomes of transvesical single- site laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (TVSSLRP) with those of nerve-sparing extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (nsELRP) in the treatment of low-risk prostate cancer (PCa).
FREE DAILY AND WEEKLY NEWSLETTERS OFFERED BY CONTENT OF INTEREST
Did you find this article relevant? Subscribe to UroToday-GUOncToday!
The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are advancing rapidly including new treatments, enrolling clinical trials, screening and surveillance recommendations along with updated guidelines. Join us as one of our subscribers who rely on UroToday as their must-read source for the latest news and data on drugs. Sign up today for blogs, video conversations, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.
METHODS: Fifty patients with low-risk organ-confined PCa were randomly assigned to two groups of equal number to receive TVSSLRP and nsELRP, respectively. Comparisons were made between the two groups of patients in such demographic and baseline data as age, comorbidity, body mass index (BMI), serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume, bioptic Gleason score, clinical stage, IIEF-5 score, nocturnal penile tumescence (NPT), penile brachial index (PBI), and penile arterial blood flow velocity as well as in such surgery-related parameters as operation duration, blood loss, blood transfusion, intraoperative complications, positive surgical margin, catheterization time, hospital stay, and postoperative Gleason score, pathologic stage, urinal pad use, PSA level, IIEF-5 score, NPT, PBI and PABFV.
RESULTS: All the operations were successfully performed. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups either in the demographic and baseline data or in intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion rate, complications, and positive surgical margin. No intraoperative complications and positive surgical margins were found in either group. Compared with nsELRP, TVSSLRP achieved a significantly shorter operation duration ([151.46 ± 40.68] min vs [105.92 ± 26.21] min, P < 0.05), catheterization time ([13.01 ± 1.64] d vs [11.24 ± 1.17] d, P < 0.05), and hospital stay ([15.76 ± 4.65] d vs [12.92 ± 4.29] d, P < 0.05). On the first day and at 1, 3 and 6 months after catheter removal, the urinary continence rates in the TVSSLRP and nsELRP groups were 84% vs 52% (P < 0.05), 100% vs 84%, 100% vs 96%, and 100% vs 96%, respectively; and at 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery, the erectile potency rates were 48% vs 28% (P < 0.05), 64% vs 52%, and 76% vs 68%, respectively, with an IIEF-5 score ≥ 18, all evidently higher in the TVSSLRP than in the nsELRP group. The penile brachial index and arterial blood flow velocity of the two groups of patients exhibited no significant differences before and after surgery, nor did postoperative complications (grade II) between the TVSSLRP and nsELRP groups (32% vs 40%, P >0.05). The Gleason score and pathologic stage were increased after surgery, but with remarkable differences between the two groups (P >0.05). No biochemical recurrence was found in either group during a 12-month follow-up.
CONCLUSION: With the advantages of safety and rapid postoperative recovery, both TVSSLRP and nsELRP are feasible for the treatment of low-risk organ-confined PCa, but the former may achieve an earlier recovery of urinary continence and erectile function than the latter.
Liu S, Wen XQ. Are you the author?
Reference: Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2014 Nov;20(11):1012-9.
Article in Chinese.