Comparison of operative and functional outcomes of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and radical retropubic prostatectomy: Single surgeon experience

Reza Ghavamian, Abraham Knoll, Judd Boczko, Arnold Melman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

40 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objectives: To compare radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) outcomes in a contemporary series. Methods: A total of 70 LRP patients operated on between 2001 and 2002 with at least 18 months of follow-up were selected. These patients were compared with a matched cohort of 70 patients who had undergone RRP by the same surgeon from 1999 to 2001. The baseline patient characteristics, perioperative and histologic parameters, recovery time, complications, and 18-month functional data were compared. Results: No significant differences were found in the preoperative characteristics. The mean operative time was 181.8 ± 18.7 minutes for RRP and 246.4 ± 46.1 minutes for LRP (P <0.0001). The mean estimated blood loss was 563.2 mL for RRP and 275.8 mL for LRP (P <0.0001). The positive margin rate was 20% and 15.7% for the RRP and LRP groups, respectively (P = NS). The mean pain score on postoperative day 1 was 4.5 in the LRP group and 7.8 in the RRP group on an analog pain score of 0 to 10 (P = 0.02). Full recovery was achieved at 33 ± 17 days and 45 ± 20 days for the LRP and RRP groups, respectively (P <0.001). The total perioperative complication rate for LRP and RRP was comparable at 18.5% and 15.7%, respectively. The diurnal continence rate (no pads) for the LRP and RRP groups was 70%, 90%, and 92.8% and 71.4%, 87.6%, and 92% at 6, 12, and 18 months, respectively (P = NS). The potency rate after bilateral neurovascular preservation with or without sildenafil for the LRP and RRP group was 55%, 72.6%, and 79.5% and 43%, 58%, and 72.4% at 6, 12, and 18 months, respectively (P = NS). Conclusions: LRP is well tolerated and provides short-term oncologic and functional results comparable to those of RRP.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1241-1246
Number of pages6
JournalUrology
Volume67
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 1 2006

    Fingerprint

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this