Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences
  • Register
  • Login

Urology Journal

  • Home
  • Instant Online
    • Instant 2026
    • Instant 2023
    • Instant 2021
    • Instant 2020
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Announcements
  • Submissions
  • Author Guidelines
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • Editorial Team
    • Privacy Statement
    • Contact
Advanced Search
  1. Home
  2. Archives
  3. Vol. 12 No. 3 (2015): May-June 2015
  4. ORIGINAL PAPER (LAPAROSCOPIC AND ROBOTIC UROLOGY)

Vol. 12 No. 3 (2015)

Tir 2015

Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy after Previous Transurethral Resection of the Prostate in Clinical T1a and T1b Prostate Cancer: A Matched-Pair Analysis

  • Yi Yang
  • Yun Luo
  • Guo-Liang Hou
  • Qun-Xiong Huang
  • Min-Hua Lu
  • Jie Si-tu
  • Xin Gao

Urology Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3 (2015), 1 Tir 2015 , Page 2154-2159
https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v12i3.3083 Published: 2015-07-01

  • View Article
  • Download
  • Cite
  • Statastics
  • Share

Abstract

Purpose: To analyze and compare surgical, oncological and functional outcomes of laparoscopic radi­cal prostatectomy (LRP) in patients with and without previous transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).

Materials and Methods: In total, 785 men underwent LRP at our institution from January 2002 to December 2012. TURP had been performed previously in 35 of these patients (TURP group). A matched-pair analysis iden­tified 35 additional men without previous TURP who exhibited equivalent clinicopathological characteristics to serve as a control group. Perioperative complications and surgical, functional, and oncological outcomes were compared between the two groups.

Results: The groups were similar in age, body mass index, serum prostate-specific antigen level, and pre- and post-operative Gleason scores. Patients in the TURP group had greater blood loss (231 vs. 139 mL), longer opera­tive times (262 vs. 213 min), a greater probability of transfusion (8.6% vs. 0%), and a higher rate of complications (37.1% vs. 11.4%) compared with the control group. The positive surgical margin rate was higher in the TURP group, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .179). The continence rates at one year after surgery were similar, but a lower continence rate was identified in the TURP group (42.9% vs. 68.6%) at 3 months. Bio­chemical recurrence developed in 17.1% and 11.4% of the patients in the TURP and control groups, respectively, after a mean follow-up of 57.6 months.

Conclusion: LRP is feasible but challenging after TURP. LRP entails longer operating times, greater blood loss, higher complication rates and worse short-term continence outcomes. However, the radical nature of this cancer surgery is not compromised.

 

  • PDF

How to Cite

Yang, Y., Luo, Y., Hou, G.-L., Huang, Q.-X., Lu, M.-H., Si-tu, J., & Gao, X. (2015). Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy after Previous Transurethral Resection of the Prostate in Clinical T1a and T1b Prostate Cancer: A Matched-Pair Analysis. Urology Journal, 12(3), 2154–2159. https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v12i3.3083
  • ACM
  • ACS
  • APA
  • ABNT
  • Chicago
  • Harvard
  • IEEE
  • MLA
  • Turabian
  • Vancouver
  • Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
  • BibTeX
  • Abstract Viewed: 586 times
  • PDF Downloaded: 422 times

Download Statastics

  • Linkedin
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • Telegram

Information

  • For Readers
  • For Authors

Developed By

Open Journal Systems
  • Home
  • Archives
  • Submissions
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Team
  • Contact
Powered by OJSPlus