Purpose: We performed a retrospective review of our database to evaluate surgical and functional outcomes in men undergoing radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) versus radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) after previous prostate surgery. Patients and Methods: A total of 616 men underwent RPP at our institution. A retrospective review of these patients showed that 59 had a history of previous surgical approach for benign prostatic hyperplasia. A second group of 59 match-paired prostate cancer patients with a history of previous prostate surgery, treated by RRP, were recruited in the our database and was used as control group. All patients were followed up at 3, 6 and 12 months and evaluated during an office evaluation with regard to urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Results: Overall complete continence was achieved in 49 (83%), 51 (86.4%) and 55 (93.2%) RPP patients at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively, versus 39 (66.1%), 42 (71.1%) and 47 (79.6%) RRP patients, respectively (p = 0.03, p = 0.04 and p = 0.03, respectively). No significant difference was reported between the two groups in the overall percentage of preserved normal erectile function. Conclusions: Radical prostatectomy in patients with previous prostate surgery should be performed with the transperineal rather than the retropubic approach.

Radical Perineal Prostatectomy versus Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy after Previous Prostate Surgery: Surgical and Functional Outcomes / Imperatore, V; Cantiello, F; Fusco, Ferdinando; Iannuzzo, M; Di Meo, S; Imbimbo, Ciro; Mirone, V.. - In: UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS. - ISSN 1423-0399. - STAMPA. - (2010), pp. 1-1.

Radical Perineal Prostatectomy versus Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy after Previous Prostate Surgery: Surgical and Functional Outcomes.

FUSCO, FERDINANDO;IMBIMBO, CIRO;
2010

Abstract

Purpose: We performed a retrospective review of our database to evaluate surgical and functional outcomes in men undergoing radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) versus radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) after previous prostate surgery. Patients and Methods: A total of 616 men underwent RPP at our institution. A retrospective review of these patients showed that 59 had a history of previous surgical approach for benign prostatic hyperplasia. A second group of 59 match-paired prostate cancer patients with a history of previous prostate surgery, treated by RRP, were recruited in the our database and was used as control group. All patients were followed up at 3, 6 and 12 months and evaluated during an office evaluation with regard to urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Results: Overall complete continence was achieved in 49 (83%), 51 (86.4%) and 55 (93.2%) RPP patients at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively, versus 39 (66.1%), 42 (71.1%) and 47 (79.6%) RRP patients, respectively (p = 0.03, p = 0.04 and p = 0.03, respectively). No significant difference was reported between the two groups in the overall percentage of preserved normal erectile function. Conclusions: Radical prostatectomy in patients with previous prostate surgery should be performed with the transperineal rather than the retropubic approach.
2010
Radical Perineal Prostatectomy versus Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy after Previous Prostate Surgery: Surgical and Functional Outcomes / Imperatore, V; Cantiello, F; Fusco, Ferdinando; Iannuzzo, M; Di Meo, S; Imbimbo, Ciro; Mirone, V.. - In: UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS. - ISSN 1423-0399. - STAMPA. - (2010), pp. 1-1.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11588/378410
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact