OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience

OBJECTIVE: To compare retrospectively the efficacy of radical perineal and retropubic prostatectomy in patients with T1, T2 cancer of the prostate.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 1991 to January 1993, 71 patients with T1, T2 carcinoma of the prostate aged 52-74 years underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy (36) or radical perineal prostatectomy (35); this was preceded by endosurgical lymphadenectomy. The two groups were identical with regard to age (64 vs 66 years), clinical stage (T1a 17% vs 25%, T2 82% vs 74%), mean and median pre-operative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (20 vs 26, 11 vs 15 using the YANG polyclonal assay n < 2.5 ng/ml). Radical retropubic prostatectomy and radical perineal prostatectomy were performed using standard procedures. Specimens were inked and analysed; operative time, volume of blood transfusions, duration of hospital stay, peri-operative complications, sexual function, urinary continence and quality of the specimens were assessed retrospectively.
RESULTS: Both groups were identical as far as operation time, hospital stay, complications (one rectal injury in each group), specimen weight and pathology were concerned. The proportions of organ-confined (54% in radical perineal prostatectomy group vs 55% in radical retropubic prostatectomy group) and margin-positive cancers (37% in radical perineal prostatectomy group vs 39% in radical retropubic prostatectomy group) were identical. The volume of blood transfusion was significantly less in the radical perineal prostatectomy group: 54% required transfusion compared with 100% in the radical retropubic prostatectomy group), 7% of radical perineal prostatectomy patients received homologous transfusion vs 38% of the radical retropubic prostatectomy patients; 11 and 3% of the patients were potent 3-6 months after surgery. Two anastomotic strictures developed after radical retropubic prostatectomy and none after the radical perineal prostatectomy. Continence was achieved at 3 months in 71% of the radical perineal prostatectomy group and in 82% of the radical retropubic prostatectomy group; by 6 months 88% of the patients were dry in both groups.
CONCLUSION: When nodal status has been assessed by lymph node dissection (open or endosurgical), radical perineal prostatectomy is a reasonable, minimally invasive alternative to radical retropubic prostatectomy provided that impotence and a slower return to full continence are accepted.