Objectives: In an effort to reduce the morbidity associated to radical prostatectomy, we implemented laparoscopic surgery to this advanced ablative and reconstructive procedure. In our study, we describe our operative technique and assess our results in terms of oncologic cure, continence and potency. Methods: 200 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. 66 of these patients were either referred, or operated during surgical demonstrations. Thus, complete evaluation is based on a homogenous personal series of 134 patients and was performed by an independent clinical analyst. There were 91 T1 and 43 T2. We did not perform pelvic lymph node excision in 78 patients whose PSA was less than 10 ng/ml and the Gleason score of endorectal biopsies was below 7. The surgical procedure recapitulated the steps of traditional retropubic prostatectomy with one basic difference however: the first step of the technique consisted in a rectoprostatic cleavage, which was done transperitoneally. Except for the first 10 patients, the vesicourethral reconstruction was performed either with two hemi–circumferential or a single circumferential running suture. Results: All interventions were performed as planned, no conversions were necessary, and only 4 patients required blood transfusion. Operating time decreased with growing experience; after the first 20 patients the usual operating time was 3.5 h without and 4 h with lymphadenectomy. The surgical complication rate was 22.5% in the first 40 patients, and 3.2% in the remaining 94 patients. Except for the first 10 patients, the mean hospital stay was 6.1 days and bladder catheterization 4.8 days. Median catheterization time was 4 days. Histological study of the specimen showed pT2 disease in 101 patients and pT3 in 33 patients, the rate of positive margins was 16.8 and 48.8%, respectively. At 1 year, overall erection rate (with or without sexual intercourse) was 56%, the rate of patients without pad was 86.2% during the day and 100% during the night. Conclusions: Laparoscopic environment seems to comply with the oncologic goals of radical prostatectomy. Improved intraoperative visualization and magnification may provide benefits for the preservation of continence and potency by allowing a more precise dissection and vesicourethral reconstruction. Despite longer operative times and the steep learning curve this new technique is currently proliferating due to expectations of decreased postoperative morbidity and better quality of life.

Keywords:
Radical prostatectomy, Prostate cancer, Laparoscopic surgery
1.
Abbou CC, Salomon L, Hoznek A, Antiphon P, Cicco A, Saint F, Alame W, Bellot J, Chopin DK: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Preliminary results. Urology 2000;55:630–634.
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 experience. J Urol 2000;163:418–422.
4.
Palmer JS, Worwag EM, Conrad WG, Blitz BF, Chodak GW: Same day surgery for radical retropubic prostatectomy: is it an attainable goal? Urology 1996;47:23–28.
5.
Souto CA, Teloken C, Souto JC, Rhoden EL, Ting HY: Experience with early catheter removal after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 2000;163:865–866.
6.
LaFontaine P, Chan D, Partin AW, Gurganus R, Hortopan SC, Marshall FF: Minilaparotomy radical retropubic prostatectomy: Updated technique and results. Semin Urol Oncol 2000; 18:19–27.
7.
Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Freiha FS, Redwine E: Morphometric and clinical studies on 68 consecutive radical prostatectomies. J Urol 1988;139:1235–1241.
8.
Walsh PC: Anatomic radical prostatectomy: Evolution of the surgical technique. J Urol 1998;160:2418–2424.
9.
Myers RP: Radical prostatectomy: Pertinent surgical anatomy. Atlas Urol Clin North Am 1994;2:1–18.
10.
Gill IS, Clayman RV, McDougall EM: Advances in urological laparoscopy. J Urol 1995; 154:1275–1294.
11.
Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, Walsh PC, Wojno KJ, Oesterling JE, Scardino PT, Pearson JD: Combination of prostate–specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer: A multi–institutional update. JAMA 1997;277:1445–1451.
12.
Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short–term experience. Urology 1997;50:854–857.
13.
Raboy A, Albert P, Ferzli G: Early experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy. Surg Endosc 1998;12: 1264–1267.
14.
Hoznek A, Salomon L, Rabii R, Ben Slama MR, Cicco A, Antiphon P, Abbou CC: Vesicourethral anastomosis during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: The running suture method. J Endourol 2001;14:749–753.
15.
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.
16.
Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Iocca A, Scherer B, Zincke H: Use of gleason score, prostate specific antigen, seminal vesicle and margin status to predict biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2001;165:119–125.
17.
Blute ML, Bostwick DG, Bergstralh EJ, Slezak JM, Martin SK, Amling CL, Zincke H: Anatomic site–specific positive margins in organ–confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology 1997;50:733–739.
18.
Fusco MA, Paluzzi MW: Abdominal wall recurrence after laparoscopic–assisted colectomy for adenocarcinoma of the colon: Report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36:858–861.
19.
Alexander RJ, Jaques BC, Mitchell KG: Laparoscopically assisted colectomy and wound recurrence. Lancet 1993;341:249–250.
20.
Milsom JW, Bohm, B, Hammerhofer KA, Fazio V, Steiger E, Elson P: A prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic versus conventional techniques in colorectal cancer surgery: A preliminary report. J Am Coll Surg 1998;187:46–54.
21.
Moul JW, Bauer JJ, Srivastava S, Colon E, Ho CK, Sesterhenn IA, McLeod DG: Perineal seeding of prostate cancer as the only evidence of clinical recurrence 14 years after needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy: Molecular correlation. Urology 1998;51:158–160.
22.
Haddad FS: Re: Risk factors for perineal seeding of prostate cancer after needle biopsy. J Urol 1990;143:587–588.
23.
Abi Aad AS, Noel H, Lorge F, Wese FX, Opsomer RJ, Van Cangh PJ: Do seminal or prostatic secretions play a role in local recurrence after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer? Eur Urol 1993;24:471–473.
24.
Oefelein MG, Kaul K, Herz B, Blum MD, Holland JM, Keeler TC, Cook WA, Ignatoff JM: Molecular detection of prostate epithelial cells from the surgical field and peripheral circulation during radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1996; 155:238–242.
25.
Jonasson O, Long L, Roberts S: Cancer cells in the circulating blood during operative management of genitourinary tumors. J Urol 1961;85: 1–12.
26.
Mansfield JT, Stephenson RA: Does transurethral resection of the prostate compromise the radical treatment of prostate cancer? Semin Urol Oncol 1996;14:174–177.
2001
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.