N. prodotti: 0
Totale ordine: € 0,00
Indexed/Abstracted in: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 0,536
Online ISSN 1827-1758
Paolo VERZE 1, Francesco GRECO 2, Salvatore SCUZZARELLA 3, Francesco BOTTONE 2, Alessandro PALMIERI 1, Vito CUCCHIARA 1, Davide ARCANIOLO 4, Vittorio IMPERATORE 5, Massimiliano CRETA 5, Vincenzo MIRONE 1
1 Department of Neurosciences, Sciences of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, Urology Unit, University of Naples “Federico II”, Naples, Italy; 2 Urology and Mini-Invasive Surgery Unit, Romolo Hospital, Rocca di Neto, Italy; 3 A. Manzoni Hospital, Urology Unit, Lecco, Italy; 4 Department of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, Urology Unit, Second University of Naples (SUN), Naples, Italy; 5 Buon Consiglio Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Urology Unit, Naples, Italy
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the outcomes in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in patients who had undergone prior prostate surgery (PPS).
METHODS: 946 consecutive LRP patients were included and a retrospective comparison between those patients who had received PPS (group A) and those who had not received PPS (group B) was made. The preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative data was collected in a prospectively-maintained database. All complications occurring ≤ 30 days after surgery were recorded and defined according to the Dindo-modification of the Clavien system.
RESULTS: Longer operative time, greater blood loss, longer catheterization time, higher incidence of lymphocele, rectal injury and anastomotic stricture were found to be more frequent in group A. No statistically significant difference was noted between the two groups in terms of positive surgical margin rate and Biochemical recurrence free survival (BCRFS). Complete urinary continence rate resulted significantly higher in group B patients at both 1-year and 2-year follow-up. Potency rate resulted better in group B patients even if a statistically significant difference for both unilateral and bilateral nerve sparing techniques was not reached.
CONCLUSIONS: LRP procedure can be safely performed on patients who have previously undergone PPS without compromising oncologic safety whereas a negative impact on functional outcome in terms of achieving a complete urinary continence rate and sexual potency is likely.