Search

Objective: We aimed to compare the functional and oncological outcomes of patients who underwent open perineal radical prostatectomy (OPP) and robotic perineal radical prostatectomy (RPP) for prostate cancer (PCa)., Methods: The data of patients who underwent OPP and RPP from June 2016 to February 2019 due to localized PCa were analyzed. Demographic characteristics, perioperative data and oncological results of the patients were recorded. In addition, the incontinence status of the patients immediately after catheter removal and at the 3rd, 6th, and 12th months were compared. Potency status was evaluated among the patients with preoperative potency, and 12th month potency status was compared., Results: A total of 135 patients were included, of whom 58 (43%) were in the OPP group and 77 (57%) were in the RPP group. The operation time was statistically significantly shorter in the OPP group (83.90 ± 15.48 vs. 110.88 ± 28.10 min, p = 0.001). The amount of bleeding was significantly lower in the RPP group (59.51 ± 22.04 vs. 74.06 ± 17.66, p = 0.002). The continence rates evaluated at the early period, 3rd, 6th, and 12th months were 40.3%, 80.5%, 87.0%, and 90.9%, respectively, for the RPP group and 36.2%, 70.7%, 86.2%, and 89.7%, for the OPP group, indicating no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the 12th month rates of postoperative potency according to the surgical technique (p > 0.05)., Conclusion: Although differences were observed between the OPP and RPP techniques in terms of perioperative parameters, oncological and functional results were similar., (© 2024 The Japanese Urological Association.)

Bacground: Predicting seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) in patients diagnosed with prostate cancer with multiparametric magnetic (mp) resonance imaging (MRI) provides more accurate local staging and thus more appropriate treatment management. Because mpMRI has a steep learning curve, radiologist experience is crucial. Our study aimed to show the difference that the experience of the uroradiologist would create in the detection rate of mpMRI and SVI by comparing it with radical prostatectomy tissue histopathology. Materials and Methods: Patients with positive SVI in radical prostatectomy specimen were included in the study. The group of radiologists less experienced in genitourinary radiology was defined as Observer I, and experienced uroradiologists as Observer II (5 years and more than 2000 MR experience) and Observer III (4 years and more than 1000 MR experience). The groups were compared in terms of accurately predicting SVI positivity. Results: Ninety (11.22%) patients were included in the study. All patients were positive for SVI, 80 patients (88.9%) had extraprostatic spread, 21 (23.3%) patients had lymph node (LN) invasion, and 20 (22.2%) patients did not undergo LN dissection. The rates of correctly predicting SVI positivity were 25.9%, 73.8%, 81% for Observer I, II, and III, respectively. The accuracy rate of Observer II and Observer III was significantly (p<0.05) higher than the Observer I group. The accuracy rate did not differ significantly (p>0.05) between Observer II and III groups. Conclusion: The ability of mpMRI to detect local factors such as SVI is enhanced by the radiologist's experience, which has the potential to create significant differences in proper staging and treatment plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]