Display options
Cite
Khoder WY, Waidelich R, Buchner A, et al. Prospective comparison of one year follow-up outcomes for the open complete intrafascial retropubic versus interfascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Springerplus. 2014;3:335doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-3-335.
Khoder, W. Y., Waidelich, R., Buchner, A., Becker, A. J., & Stief, C. G. (2014). Prospective comparison of one year follow-up outcomes for the open complete intrafascial retropubic versus interfascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. SpringerPlus, 3335. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-335
Khoder, Wael Y, et al. "Prospective comparison of one year follow-up outcomes for the open complete intrafascial retropubic versus interfascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy." SpringerPlus vol. 3 (2014): 335. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-335
Khoder WY, Waidelich R, Buchner A, Becker AJ, Stief CG. Prospective comparison of one year follow-up outcomes for the open complete intrafascial retropubic versus interfascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Springerplus. 2014 Jul 01;3:335. doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-3-335. eCollection 2014. PMID: 25032093; PMCID: PMC4094758.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Springerplus. 2014 Jul 01;3:335. doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-3-335. eCollection 2014.

Prospective comparison of one year follow-up outcomes for the open complete intrafascial retropubic versus interfascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy.

SpringerPlus

Wael Y Khoder, Raphaela Waidelich, Alexander Buchner, Armin J Becker, Christian G Stief

Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University Hospital Munich-Grosshadern, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Marchioninistrasse 15, 81377 Munich, Germany.

PMID: 25032093 PMCID: PMC4094758 DOI: 10.1186/2193-1801-3-335

Abstract

Current work provides a prospective direct comparison between Open complete intrafascial-radical-prostatectomy (OIF-RP) and interfascial-RP in all outcomes in single centre series. Both techniques were done prospectively in 430 patients. Inclusion criteria for OIF-RP (n=241 patients) were biopsy Gleason-score ≤6 and PSA ≤10 ng/ml while for interfascial-RP (n=189) were Gleason-score ≤7 and PSA ≤15. The perioperative parameters (e.g. operative time, complications etc.), pathologic results, surgical margins and revisions were reviewed. Pre- and postoperative (3 and 12 months) evaluation of continence and potency was performed. All patients have preoperative IIEF-score of ≥15. Continence was classified as complete (no pads), mild (1-2 pads/day) and incontinence (>2 pads/day). Median patients' age was 63.7 vs. 64.5 years for OIF-RP vs. Interfascial-RP, respectively. Preoperative PSA-level was significantly lower in OIF-RP (5.8 vs. 7.1), otherwise, similar perioperative data in both groups except for more frequent pT3-tumors in interfascial-RP group (18%). No statistical significance regarding continence was observed between OIF-RP vs. Interfascial-RP groups at 3 (82% vs. 85%) and 12 months (98% vs. 96%) postoperatively. Potency rates (IIEF ≥15) after OIF-RP were 96% (≤55 years), 72% (55-65), and 75% (>65 years) at 12 months. The respective rates for interfascial-group were 58%, 61% and 51%. There was an advantage for OIF-RP potency-outcomes without significance over Interfascial-RP in weak potency patients (IIEF=15-18). We conclude that OIF-RP is associated with better functional results without compromising early oncological results compared to interfascial-RP. Complete preservation of periprostatic fasciae provides significantly better postoperative recovery of sexual function even for weak potency patients. Longer follow-up is mandatory to further evaluate the outcome results of this technique.

Keywords: Intrafascial prostatectomy; Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy

References

  1. J Urol. 2008 Dec;180(6):2557-64; discussion 2564 - PubMed
  2. BJU Int. 2004 Nov;94(7):1071-6 - PubMed
  3. Eur Urol. 2007 Mar;51(3):598-600 - PubMed
  4. Urology. 2012 Mar;79(3):717-21 - PubMed
  5. Eur Urol. 2007 Mar;51(3):764-71 - PubMed
  6. BJU Int. 2010 Aug;106(4):543-7 - PubMed
  7. Urol Oncol. 2013 Oct;31(7):1043-8 - PubMed
  8. Eur Urol. 2006 Jan;49(1):38-48 - PubMed
  9. J Urol. 2005 Feb;173(2):537-9 - PubMed
  10. BJU Int. 2006 Mar;97(3):467-72 - PubMed
  11. Eur Urol. 2012 Jun;61(6):1222-8 - PubMed
  12. Eur Urol. 2007 Mar;51(3):629-39 - PubMed
  13. Eur Urol. 2005 Dec;48(6):938-45 - PubMed
  14. Eur Urol. 2003 May;43(5):444-54 - PubMed
  15. BJU Int. 2009 Dec;104(11):1730-3 - PubMed
  16. Eur Urol. 2008 Nov;54(5):1109-16 - PubMed
  17. Prostate. 1983;4(5):473-85 - PubMed
  18. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2004 Aug;34(8):463-8 - PubMed
  19. Eur Urol. 2006 Jan;49(1):103-11; discussion 111-2 - PubMed
  20. Eur Urol. 2007 Mar;51(3):648-57; discussion 657-8 - PubMed
  21. J Endourol. 2006 Nov;20(11):925-9 - PubMed
  22. Eur Urol. 2010 Feb;57(2):179-92 - PubMed
  23. Eur Urol. 2007 Sep;52(3):687-94 - PubMed
  24. Eur Urol. 2006 Jun;49(6):1065-73; discussion 1073-4 - PubMed
  25. Urology. 2010 Sep;76(3):743-8 - PubMed

Publication Types