Introduction: After an initial experience using transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy as described by Vallancien and Guillonneau, we developed a pure extraperitoneal approach. This approach seems more comparable to the open technique and avoid potential risks of specific complications due to the transperitoneal approach. We evaluated the perioperative parameters (blood loss, operating time, transfusion rate) and postoperative results (oncological results, continence and potency) after our first 50 cases. Material and Method: Between September 1999 and September 2000, we performed 50 laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. On average, patients were 63.3 years old (range 47–71), had preoperative mean PSA values of 9.14 ng/ml (1.1–23). Median Gleason score was 6 (4–10) with 2.5 (1–6) positive biopsies for a mean prostate volume of 40 cm3 (17.5–95.0). Clinical stage was T1, T2a, T2b and T3 in 46.3, 41.5, 9.8 and 2.4% of the cases, respectively. We used a pure extraperitoneal approach and we performed a descending technique starting with the dissection at the bladder neck. The seminal vesicles dissection is comparable to the open approach. Results: 42 extraperitoneal and 8 transperitoneal procedures were performed (2 in the initial experience, 3 because of previous abdominal surgery and 3 because of incidental peritoneal opening). Mean operative time was 317 min, mean blood loss 680 cm3, transfusion rate of 13%. 1 patient/50 was converted to an open procedure. Pathological stage was pT1a, pT2a, pT2b, pT2c, pT3a and pT3b in 2.2, 8.5, 42.5, 2.2, 34 and 10.6% of cases, respectively. Positive surgical margins were observed in 22% of cases. The potency rate after neurovascular bilateral bundle preservation was 43% at 3 months (n = 7) and 67% at 6 months and (n = 6) without any further treatment. The continence rate (no pad) was 39% at 3 months and 85% at 6 months. Detectable postoperative PSA at 3 month was observed in 2 patients only. Two major complications occurred: one acute transient renal failure one uretrorectal fistula at day 20. Conclusions: The extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy results seem comparable to transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy or open surgery. This approach is reproducible and seems to avoid the potential risks of intraperitoneal injury. Long–term follow up and comparative series are however necessary to further evaluate these new techniques.

1.
Schluesser WW, Kavoussi LR, Clayman RV, Vancaille TH: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial case report. J Urol 1992;147: 246A (abstract 130).
2.
Schluesser WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Initial short–term experience. Urology 1997;50:854–857.
3.
Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Barre E, Rozet F, Vallancien G: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Technical and early oncological assessment of 40 operations. Eur Urol 1999;36: 14–20.
4.
Raboy A, Ferzli G, Albert P: Initial experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 1997;50:849– 853.
5.
Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Vallancien G: Short term oncological results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, statement after 135 first procedures. Eur Urol 2000;37 (suppl 2):1–175 (abstr 386).
6.
Jacob F, Salomon L, Hoznek A, Bellot J, Antiphon P, Chopin DK, Abbou CC: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Preliminary results. Eur Urol 2000;37:615–620.
7.
Rassweiler J, Seeman O, El–Quaran M, Sentker L, Stock C, Frede T: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: The Heilbron technique. Eur Urol 2000;submitted.
8.
Guillonneau B, Vallancien G: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: The Montsouris experience. J Urol 2000;163:418–422.
9.
Guillonneau B, Vallancien G.: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris technique. J Urol 2000;163:1643–1649.
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.