DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.041
The anatomic radical perineal prostatectomy: an outcomes-based evolution.
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE
Radical prostatectomy is the most effective treatment for localized prostate cancer. With increasing use of minimally invasive treatment methods, clinical outcomes are becoming important assessment tools to compare one option to another. Perineal prostatectomy is modified to incorporate contemporary surgical ideas, including preservation of cavernosal nerve bundles, sphincteric urethra at the prostatic apex, and the bladder neck.
METHODS
Objective parameters and physician-reported clinical outcomes are collected prospectively on 704 consecutive patients undergoing radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) by one surgeon. The technique described herein is the current state of evolution of RPP. The enclosed digital video is edited from two recent nerve-sparing RPPs.
RESULTS
Freedom from prostate-specific antigen (PSA) detectability by stage is 94.5%, 80.0%, and 81.5% for organ-confined, specimen-confined, and margin-positive disease with actual 5-yr follow-up. Margins are positive in 18% of cases. By 1, 3, 6 mo and 1 yr, 52%, 71%, 85%, and 94% of the men are free from using pads. Although >97% of nerve-spared patients have spontaneous erections, >80% can penetrate to complete intercourse.
CONCLUSIONS
This method of prostatectomy is able to achieve complete cancer resection while preserving urinary and sexual function in the majority of men presenting with clinically localized prostate cancer. The simplicity and minimally invasive nature of this procedure contribute to a short recovery and low overall cost of therapy. The anatomic RPP is a cost-efficient, outcome-effective minimally invasive method of treating men with localized prostate cancer.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.