Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy in high prostate volume cases: impact on oncological and functional results

• Main Authors: Sciarra Alessandro, Gentilucci Alessandro, Cattarino Susanna, Innocenzi Michele, Di Quilio Francesca, Fasulo Andrea, Magnus Von heland, Gentile Vincenzo, Salciccia Stefano
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia 2016-04-01
• Series: International Brazilian Journal of Urology
• Subjects: Laparoscopy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Surgical Procedures; Operative
• Online Access: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382016000200223&lng=en&tlng=en

ABSTRACT Background and objective: To prospectively compare the laparoscopic versus open approach to RP in cases with high prostate volume and to evaluate a possible different impact of prostate volume. Materials and Methods: From March 2007 to March 2013 a total of 120 cases with clinically localized prostate cancer (PC) and a prostate volume>70cc identified for radical prostatectomy (RP), were prospectively analyzed in our institute. Patients were offered as surgical technique either an open retropubic or an intraperitoneal laparoscopic (LP) approach. In our population, 54 cases were submitted to LP and 66 to open RP. We analyzed the association of the surgical technique with perioperative, oncological and postoperative functional parameters. Results: In those high prostate volume cases, the surgical technique (laparoscopic versus open) does not represent a significant independent factor able to influence positive surgical margins rates and characteristics (p=0.4974). No significant differences (p>0.05) in the overall rates of positive margins was found, and also no differences following stratification according to the pathological stage and nerve sparing (NS) procedure. The surgical technique was able to significantly and independently influence the hospital stay, time of operation and blood loss (p<0.001). On the contrary, in our population, the surgical technique was not a significant factor influencing all pathological and 1-year oncological or functional outcomes (p>0.05). Conclusions: In our prospective non randomized analysis on high prostate volumes, the laparoscopic approach to RP is able to guarantee the same oncological and functional results of an open approach, maintaining the advantages in terms of perioperative outcomes.