• R S Lance, P A Freidrichs, C Kane, C R Powell, E Pulos, J W Moul, D G McLeod, R L Cornum, and Brantley Thrasher J.
• Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington, DC 98431-1100, USA.
• BJU Int. 2001 Jan 1; 87 (1): 61-5.

ObjectiveTo review and compare the outcome of patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) or radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) for clinically localized prostate cancer.Patients And MethodsFrom 1988 to 1997, 1382 men who were treated by RRP and 316 by RPP were identified from databases of the Uniformed Services Urology Research Group. The following variables were assessed; age, race, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level before surgery, clinical stage, biopsy Gleason sum, estimated blood loss (EBL), margin-positive rate, pathological stage, biochemical recurrence rate, short and long-term complication rates, impotence and incontinence rates. To eliminate selection bias, the analysis was concentrated on pairs of patients matched by race, preoperative PSA level, clinical stage and biopsy Gleason sum.ResultsIn the 190 matched patients there were no significant differences between the RRP and RPP groups in either organ-confined (57% vs 55%), margin-positive (39% vs 43%), or biochemical recurrence rates (12.9% vs 17.6% at a mean follow-up of 47.1 vs 42.9 months), respectively. The mean EBL was 1575 mL in the RRP group and 802 mL in the RPP group (P < 0.001). The only significant difference in complication rates was a higher incidence of rectal injury in the RPP group (4.9%) than in the RRP group (none, P < 0.05).ConclusionsIn similar populations of patients, RPP offers equivalent organ-confined, margin-positive and biochemical recurrence rates to RRP, while causing significantly less blood loss.

16 keywords...

hide…