Search

Objective: To compare open simple prostatectomy, endoscopic enucleation and laparoscopic, robot-assisted enucleation of high-volume prostate in terms of operation time, blood loss, transfusion and complication rates and early continence rates., Material and Methods: Patients with BPH treated endoscopically (ThuVEP, Hamburg and Hannover) or robotically (Mainz) were evaluated prospectively for prostate size, free flow and validated questionnaires (IPSS, QoL). 35 patients were matched to patients after open prostatectomy (Mainz) for age, prostate size, IPSS and QoL scores. Operation time was noted from the first cut to the last suture; blood loss was estimated by the drop of haemoglobin preoperatively and one day after surgery. Transfusion rates were documented. Early continence was estimated by pad use over the first 24 h after catheter removal. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 22.0., Results: No significant differences in prostate size, age and preoperative questionnaires were found (p > 0.3). Postoperative flow and the results of the questionnaires were significantly improved (all p < 0.05), without difference between the approaches (p > 0.8). Endoscopic surgery showed superiority in operation time (both p < 0.05); blood loss and transfusion rates were significantly lower compared to open surgery (both p < 0.01) and lower than in robotic surgery without reaching significance (p = 0.18, p = 0.36). Similar results were seen in early continence rates., Conclusion: Due to our results, endoscopic surgery should be considered as first-line therapy unless there are comorbidities like diverticula and/or bladder calculi that can be easily treated simultaneously by robotic surgery. Against the background of these findings, indications favouring open surgery are getting sparse.

Background: Certified Prostate Centers proclaim congruent process and outcome quality results for treatment of prostate carcinoma. Therapy in accordance with the guidelines after presentation of the patient in an interdisciplinary conference and regular documented follow up are not in themselves a guarantee for good quality results (complication free, continence, erectile function, negative surgical margins, biochemical recurrence free), and are significantly influenced by factors not contained within the certification framework., Discussion: An association between exceeding the minimum number of operations and quality assurance exists, if at all, only vaguely and on no account justifies the absolute numbers necessary for certification. Although good measuring instruments for a Pentafecta analysis are available, the gathering of quality results for a center are limited to questionnaires for functional quality results and in the non-differentiated request for a pT2R1 rate of under 10 % for oncological quality results., Conclusions: The reasons for this systematic ignoring of the for the patient so important quality results with a simultaneous excessive regard for standardizing organizational procedure processes are manifold. They comprise valid verifiability of process quality, the unclear effects of standardized treatment pathways on actual operation quality and the capitulation to statistical and patient determined problems with sufficient acquisition of comparable functional OP results. Whereas the outcome quality is more important than the process quality for patients with prostate carcinoma, the certified centers conduct themselves in exactly the opposite manner, thus creating a virtually insoluble dilemma.

Background: Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) has been rapidly adopted as a standard approach for surgical treatment of organ-confined prostate cancer. Despite additional costs, RALP seems to provide better functional and oncological outcomes and less blood loss compared to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). However, prospective randomized studies are still missing., Purpose: Based on the current literature, this review reports about the role of RALP in prostate cancer treatment. Its functional and oncologic outcomes as well as complication rates are compared to ORP. Particularly, the role of RALP in nonorgan-confined tumors will be discussed., Results: Based on the current literature, RALP provides better continence and potency rates as compared to ORP. Moreover, the incidence of positive surgical margins seems to be reduced. However, there is conflicting data regarding the role of RALP in nonorgan-confined prostate cancer. Regarding long-term oncologic outcomes, RALP seems to be comparable to ORP.

Today, for the surgical treatment of postprostatectomy incontinence, several treatment options are available, e.g., adjustable and functional sling systems, artificial sphincter, bulking agents, and balloons. However, no recommendations in terms of specific diagnostic tools and differentiated treatment options for everyday life are available. Our aim is to provide some clinically relevant recommendations for the necessary diagnostic workup and different treatment options of postprostatetectomy incontinence to support clinical decisions in everyday life. Treatment selection should be based on contraindications. However, there is a broad overlap of the various surgical options.

Objective: • To determine the value of systematic intraoperative peripheral frozen sections (FS) with or without extended resection during nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy for prediction of biochemical recurrence (BCR) compared with inked surgical margins., Patients and Methods: • Between 1999 and 2003, in a prospective study, multiple peripheral FS (median 14; range 5-20) were taken from the urethral stump, circumferentially from the bladder neck, and from the lateral pedicles in 200 consecutive bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomies for clinically localized prostate cancer by a single surgeon. • Patients with stage pT3b or more and/or positive lymph nodes were excluded. • Of the 188 patients, 178 (94.7%) were followed over a median of 82 months (62-124). • BCR, defined as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥ 0.2 ng/mL, was related to status of both, inked specimen margins and FS., Results: • Of all 188 prostatectomy specimens, 49 (26.1%) had positive surgical margins (PSM); these were found posterolaterally in 15 (30.6%), apically in 13 (26.5%), basally in 10 (20.4%) and at multiple sites in 11 (22.4%) specimens. • Intraoperative peripheral FS were positive in 19 (10.7%) patients, including 6.2% at urethral stump, 3.3% at lateral pedicles and 1.1% at bladder neck. • In organ-confined disease, BCR-free survival was 93.3% (111/119) for patients with negative surgical margins (NSM) and 72% (18/25) for patients with PSM (inked specimen), but negative peripheral FS (P < 0.001). • Five- and 10-year BCR-free survival for NSM was 94.9% and 92.8%, for PSM with negative peripheral FS it was 75.3% and 70.6%, and for PSM with positive peripheral FS it was 62.5% and 62.5%, respectively., Conclusions: • Frozen section biopsies of peripheral resection margins during nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy are not reliable in predicting PSM. • Intraoperative achievement of a locally disease-free status, as monitored by negative circumferential intraoperative FS of peripheral margins, is not associated with a statistically significant BCR-free survival benefit compared with patients with negative surgical margins on the prostatectomy specimen. • Based on these findings, we do not recommend a routine of systematically taking intraoperative FS biopsies during nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy., (© 2010 THE AUTHORS. BJU INTERNATIONAL © 2010 BJU INTERNATIONAL.)

Objectives: To analyze the incidence and management of anastomotic strictures (ASs) after radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) and retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) and to identify possible predisposing factors., Methods: Between 1997 and 2007, we performed 866 RPP and 2052 RRP for localized prostate cancer. Median follow-up was 52 months (12-136). We analyzed preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen, prostate size, clinical and pathologic tumor stage, neoadjuvant hormone deprivation, previous transurethral resection of the prostate, transfusion requirement, anastomotic insufficiency, and acute urinary retention (AUR) and its subsequent management to identify possible predisposing factors for AS formation., Results: The rate of AS after RPP and RRP was 3.8% (33/863) and 5.5% (113/2048), respectively (P = .067). In multivariate analysis, RRP was a statistically significant risk factor for AS (P = .0002). On survival analysis, the incidence of AS was lower for RPP as compared with RRP at median follow-up (P = .0229). Primary response to endoscopic AS incision or resection was 94% (31/33) and 72.6% (82/113) after RPP and RRP, respectively. On multivariate logistic regression analysis biopsy Gleason score, previous transurethral resection of the prostate, prostate volume, pathologic tumor stage and grade, transfusion requirement, AUR, and surgical technique were independent risk factors for the development of AS. An AS developed in 45.4% (20/44) and 10.9% (5/46) of the postoperative AUR cases treated with a suprapubic cystostomy tube and a transurethral Foley catheter, respectively (P <.05)., Conclusions: ASs occur more frequently after RRP in comparison with RPP. Primary endoscopic AS incision or resection are both highly successful. Treating postoperative AUR with a suprapubic cystostomy poses a high risk for AS formation and should be avoided., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Rectourethral fistula is a rare but severe complication after radical prostatectomy and there is no standardized treatment. We retrospectively evaluated the incidence, symptoms and management of rectourethral fistulas based on our experience., Materials and Methods: From 1999 to 2008 we performed 2,447 radical prostatectomies. Patients in whom postoperative rectourethral fistulas developed were identified. Based on the therapeutic approach patients were categorized into group 1-conservative treatment, group 2-colostomy with or without surgical closure and group 3-immediate surgical closure without colostomy., Results: Rectourethral fistulas developed in 13 of 2,447 patients (0.53%) after radical prostatectomy. The risk of rectourethral fistulas was 3.06-fold higher (p = 0.074) for perineal (7 of 675, 1.04%) than for retropubic prostatectomy (6 of 1,772, 0.34%). In 7 of 13 patients (54%) a rectal lesion was primarily closed at radical prostatectomy. Median followup was 59 months. In all patients in group 1 (3) the fistula closed spontaneously with conservative treatment. None of these patients had fecaluria. In group 2 of the 9 patients 3 (33%) experienced spontaneous fistula closure after temporary colostomy and transurethral catheterization. In this group 6 patients (67%) required additional surgical fistula closure, which was successful in all. Surgical fistula closure (1) without colostomy in presence of fecaluria failed (group 3)., Conclusions: The therapeutic concept for rectourethral fistulas should be guided by clinical symptoms. Rectal injury during radical prostatectomy is a major risk factor. In cases with fecaluria colostomy is required for control of infection and may allow spontaneous fistula closure in approximately a third of cases. In the remainder of cases surgical fistula closure was successful in all after protective colostomy., (Copyright 2010 American Urological Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Nowadays, male stress urinary incontinence is rare and almost always of iatrogenic origin (radiotherapy, pelvic surgery). However, the prognosis of urinary incontinence following surgery is good and can be improved by pelvic floor muscle exercises in combination with biofeedback systems. For the remaining patient cohort with persistent urinary incontinence, several established surgical treatment options are available. Suburothelial injections of bulking agents can easily be performed in an ambulatory setting. However, regardless of the material used, long-term results are disappointing. Moreover, the residual urethral function deteriorates due to cicatrization of the suburothelial plexus with consequent loss of urethral elasticity. The fascial sling procedure in males has to be performed in preoperated areas and is as technically demanding for the surgeon as it is burdening for the patient. Alloplastic material is not used, thus minimizing risks for arrosion or infection. Since the sling tension can neither be standardized nor postoperatively readjusted, the risk of overcorrection is considerable and the success of the procedure is heavily dependent on the surgeon's experience. Despite wear and high revision rates, the technically mature artificial sphincter produces excellent continence results and has become the gold standard in the therapy of male stress urinary incontinence. The circumferential and continuous urethral compression by the cuff is highly effective, but at the price of an almost inevitable urethral atrophy. To overcome this problem, various surgical techniques have been developed (tandem cuff, cuff downsizing, transcorporal cuff placement). However, the expensive artificial sphincter is not a nostrum for every incontinent man, since it requires certain minimal cognitive and manual capabilities. Therefore, the search for less demanding treatment alternatives seems to be necessary, even if one has to accept lower continence rates.

We present a case of post-traumatic posterior urethral stricture and localized prostate cancer, which could be treated successfully with simultaneous radical perineal prostatectomy and membranous urethral stricture excision. After 6 months follow-up, the patient is continent with no evidence of stricture recurrence. Post-traumatic posterior urethral strictures can be managed surgically through a perineal approach with high success rates. Prostate surgery after pelvic fracture with posterior urethral distraction defects does not necessarily lead to stress urinary incontinence.

We report the first case of direct surgical injury to a pudendal nerve branch during radical perineal prostatectomy. A 65-year-old patient presented with typical symptoms of a pudendal nerve lesion after radical perineal prostatectomy. As the patient did not respond to conservative treatment, surgical exploration and exeresis of the injured sensory branch of the pudendal nerve was necessary, resulting in pain improvement. Urologic surgeons should be aware of the typical symptoms after iatrogenic injury to the pudendal nerve or its branches. Early diagnosis and neurosurgical intervention are important to obtain a more favorable outcome.

Purpose: Although groups at several institutions have long experience with radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP), only few reports of larger series describe associated complications, mostly without reporting management options in detail. We analyzed specific perioperative and postoperative complications of the perineal approach and management strategies thereof., Materials and Methods: The medical records of 630 patients who underwent RPP between January 1997 and May 2003 were retrospectively reviewed in regard to complications and their management. Median followup was 8 months (range 1 to 68)., Results: Major complications requiring open surgical intervention were noted in 11 patients (1.7%) for a total surgical revision rate of 2.4% (15 of 630). Two patients with persistent urinary fistula required fistula excision and closure. Two patients with a rectocutaneous fistula needed temporary diverting colostomy. Three patients with a combined urinary and fecal fistula were treated with protective colostomy, fistula excision and the interposition of a tunica vaginalis graft. No further morbidity was observed in these patients. In 7 patients a subvesical hematoma was drained surgically, including 3 mentioned in whom a hematoma expanded into the urethral anastomosis. Minor complications, which could be successfully managed conservatively or with endoscopic interventions only, developed in 124 patients for a total rate of 19.7%. In the long term 9% of the patients experienced postoperative de novo changes in stool habits after RPP but only 2.7% reported distressing anal sphincter incompetence., Conclusions: RPP is a safe and reproducible procedure with low major complication and reintervention rates even in a training center setting with many involved surgeons. A subvesical hematoma should be revised early since it can be the origin of subsequent major complications.