Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Clinical Experience and Learning Curve with 103 Cases

Ho Suck Chung; Bu Hyeon Yun; Hyun Chong Ki; Seong Woong Na; Eu Chang Hwang; Chang Min Im; Seung Il Jung; Dong Deuk Kwon; Kwangsung Park; Soo Bang Ryu

doi:10.4068/cmj.2010.46.3.170

Journal List > Chonnam Med J > v.46(3) > 1017955

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Chung, Yun, Ki, Na, Hwang, Im, Jung, Kwon, Park, and Ryu: Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Clinical Experience and Learning Curve with 103 Cases

Original Article

Chonnam Medical Journal

Chonnam Medical Journal 2010; 46(3): 170-176.

Published online: 23 December 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4068/cmj.2010.46.3.170

Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Clinical Experience and Learning Curve with 103 Cases

Ho Suck Chung, Bu Hyeon Yun, Hyun Chong Ki, Seong Woong Na, Eu Chang Hwang, Chang Min Im, Seung Il Jung, Dong Deuk Kwon, Kwangsung Park

, Soo Bang Ryu

Department of Urology, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea.

Corresponding author: urokwon@gmail.com

Received 22 July 2010 Accepted 24 August 2010

Abstract

To estimate the early operative results and learning curve of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in 103 patients. Between March 2006 and January 2009, 103 patients with clinically organ-confined prostate cancer who underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy were enrolled in this study. Surgical morbidity and the oncologic and functional results of the groups were compared to evaluate the learning curve. The patients' mean age was 63.3±8.1 years, and their mean serum PSA was 14.1±7.6 ng/ml. The mean operating time and hospital stay were 265±83 minutes and 10.6±3.6 days, respectively. The mean postoperative period of an indwelling Foley catheter was 13.8±2.7 days. The positive surgical margin rate was 26.2%. After a mean follow-up of 15.5±9.4 months, a PSA relapse was observed in 3 (8.6%) patients in the first period. Continence and sufficient erection rates were about 80% and 45% after 6 months, respectively. Analysis of the learning curve revealed differences in the operating time, estimated blood loss, and complication rate but showed no influence on hospital days, indwelling Foley catheter days, or positive surgical margin rate. Although laparoscopic radical prostatectomy requires significant expertise with a learning curve, morbidity is low and the oncologic continence results were promising. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy could be considered as the first safe treatment for patients with organ-confined prostate cancer. The learning curve for extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy seemed to show no complete plateau in this study. It depended not only on technical skills, but also on self-perceived skills. Standardized expectations and operative outcomes could help to define the true learning curve for extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Keywords: Prostatic neoplasms, Laparoscopy, Prostatectomy

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1

Legend duration of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection (A), without pelvic lymph node dissection (PNLD) (B).

Table 1

Characteristics of patients

BMI, body mass index; PSA, prostate-specific antigen.

Table 2

Operative data of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

PLND, pelvic lymph node dissection.

^*Student's t-test; ^†chi-square test.

Table 3

Postoperative data of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

^*Student's t-test; ^†chi-square test.

Table 4

Pathologic results of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Table 5

Oncologic & functional results at postoperative 6 months

^*chi-square test.

References

1. Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology. 1997. 50:854–857.

2. Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Rozet F, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: technical and early oncological assessment of 40 operations. Eur Urol. 1999. 36:14–20.

3. Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris technique. J Urol. 2000. 163:1643–1649.

4. Jang J, Cha SH, Kim DB, Kim JC, Hwang TK. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Korean J Urol. 2002. 43:342–345.

5. Raboy A, Ferzli G, Albert P. Initial experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 1997. 50:849–853.

6. Bollens R, Vanden Bossche M, Roumeguere T, Damoun A, Ekane S, Hoffmann P, et al. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Results after 50 cases. Eur Urol. 2001. 40:65–69.

7. Stolzenburg JU, Truss MC, Do M, Rabenalt R, Pfeiffer H, Dunzinger M, et al. Evolution of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE)--technical improvements and development of a nerve-sparing, potency-preserving approach. World J Urol. 2003. 21:147–152.

8. Rozet F, Arroyo C, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Prapotnich D, Vallancien G. Extraperitoneal standard laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2004. 18:605–609.

9. Ruiz L, Salomon L, Hoznek A, Vordos D, Yiou R, de la Taille A, et al. Comparison of early oncologic results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach. Eur Urol. 2004. 46:50–54.

10. Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, DO M, Ho K, Dorschner W, Waldkirch E, et al. Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: oncological and functional results after 700 procedures. J Urol. 2005. 174:1271–1275.

11. Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, Tannapfel A, Liatsikos EN. Intrafascial nerve-sparing endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2006. 67:17–21.

12. Trabulsi EJ, Guillonneau B. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005. 173:1072–1079.

13. Eden CG, King D, Kooiman GG, Adams TH, Sullivan ME, Vass JA. Transperitoneal or extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does the approach matter? J Urol. 2004. 172:2218–2223.

14. Kim YJ, Han BK, Byun SS, Lee SE. Comparison of perioperative outcomes of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (ELRP) versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP): single surgeon's initial experience. Korean J Urol. 2007. 48:131–137.

15. Hoznek A, Samadi DB, Salomon L, De La Taille A, Olsson LE, Abbou CC. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: published series. Curr Urol Rep. 2002. 3:152–158.

16. Guillonneau B, Rozet F, Cathelineau X, Lay F, Barret E, Doublet JD, et al. Perioperative complications of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris 3-year experience. J Urol. 2002. 167:51–56.

17. Guillonneau B, Gupta R, El Fettouh H, Cathelineau X, Baumert H, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic [correction of laproscopic] management of rectal injury during laparoscopic [correction of laproscopic] radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2003. 169:1694–1696.

18. Katz R, Borkowski T, Hoznek A, Salomon L, de la Taille A, Abbou CC. Operative management of rectal injuries during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2003. 62:310–313.

19. Ghavamian R, Knoll A, Boczko J, Melman A. Comparison of operative and functional outcomes of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and radical retropubic prostatectomy: single surgeon experience. Urology. 2006. 67:1241–1246.

20. Nadu A, Salomon L, Hoznek A, Olsson LE, Saint F, de La Taille A, et al. Early removal of the catheter after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2001. 166:1662–1664.

21. Ohori M, Wheeler TM, Kattan MW, Goto Y, Scardino PT. Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 1995. 154:1818–1824.

22. Cho KS, Hong SJ, Chung BH. The impact of positive surgical margins on biochemical recurrence after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Korean J Urol. 2004. 45:416–422.

23. Türk I, Deger S, Winkelmann B, Schönberger B, Loening SA. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Technical aspects and experience with 125 cases. Eur Urol. 2001. 40:46–52.

24. Dahl DM, L'esperance JO, Trainer AF, Jiang Z, Gallagher K, Litwin DE, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial 70 cases at a U.S. university medical center. Urology. 2002. 60:859–863.

25. Wieder JA, Soloway MS. Incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol. 1998. 160:299–315.

26. Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Doublet JD, Baumert H, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 550 procedures. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2002. 43:123–133.

27. Walsh PC, Marschke P, Ricker D, Burnett AL. Patient-reported urinary continence and sexual function after anatomic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2000. 55:58–61.

28. Touijer K, Eastham JA, Secin FP, Romero Otero J, Serio A, Stasi J, et al. Comprehensive prospective comparative analysis of outcomes between open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy conducted in 2003 to 2005. J Urol. 2008. 179:1811–1817.

29. Bollens R, Sandhu S, Roumeguere T, Quackels T, Schulman C. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the learning curve. Curr Opin Urol. 2005. 15:79–82.

TOOLS

ORCID iDs: Kwangsung Park
https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8827-162X
Similar articles