Evaluating the Oncological and Functional Outcomes in 167 Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Could Laparoscopy Still be a Viable Option in Suitable Patients?
Citation
Kaba, M., Binbay, M., Erbin, A., Tefekli, A. H., Verep, S., & Muslumanoglu, A. Y. (2024). Evaluating the Oncological and Functional Outcomes in 167 Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Could Laparoscopy Still be a Viable Option in Suitable Patients?. Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A, 34(1), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2023.0337Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the oncological and functional outcomes of 167 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).
Materials and Methods: The retrospective study included 167 patients who were treated with LRP due to clinically localized prostate cancer between January 2007 and April 2012. Most of the patients were treated with the extraperitoneal approach. Preoperative evaluations included age, serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and biopsy Gleason score. Perioperative evaluations included duration of operative time and anastomosis time, blood loss (milliliter), and complications. Postoperative evaluations included length of hospital stay and catheterization time. Continence and erectile function were evaluated both pre- and postoperatively. The patients who used no pads or no more than one pad daily and the ones who had only a few urine leakages on effort or exertion were accepted as continent. Postoperative potency was defined as the ability to achieve sexual intercourse with or without the use of PDE-5 inhibitors.
Results: Mean age and mean operative time were 62.46.0 years and 220.5 +/- 45.6 minutes, respectively. Mean anastomosis time was 35.6 +/- 9.8 minutes. Mean serum PSA level and mean Gleason score were 17.5 +/- 9.97ng/mL and 6.16 +/- 0.42, respectively. Pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed in 94 patients and nerve-sparing procedures in 61 patients. The pathological analysis revealed positive surgical margin in 35 patients (20.9%). Bilateral and unilateral nerve-sparing LRP procedures were performed in 51 (30.5%) and 10 (6%) patients, respectively. At 12 months after surgery, 3 (1.8%) patients were using 2 or more pads per day, 19 (26.4%) patients were satisfied with erection, hardness, and duration of intercourse, and 9 (12.5%) patients had an erection with insufficient hardness and duration.
Conclusion: LRP is an acceptable method in localized prostate cancer due to its perioperative and early postoperative results.
