Retrograde Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Prostatectomy (RELP). A Prospective Study about 1,000 Consecutive Patients, with Oncological and Functional Results
Urology Journal,
Vol. 18 No. 05 (2021),
7 November 2021
,
Page 503-511
https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v18i05.6233
Abstract
Purpose: Usual laparoscopic surgery of localized prostate cancer uses antegrade dissection. We describe and evaluate the original RELP (Retrograde Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Prostatectomy).
Materials and Methods: A prospective cohort of 1005 patients with clinical localized cancer prostate were operated from December 1999 to September 2013, in Lyon (France), and followed up to 172 months (median: 60 months). Patients encountered a RELP procedure, a totally extra-peritoneal approach with a retrograde dissection from the apex to the bladder neck, and ascending dissection of the erectile neurovascular bundles, facilitated by the 30° optic telescope. Adjunctive treatments were: immediate radiotherapy (9.2%), salvage radiotherapy (13.4%), androgen deprivation therapy (10.8%), chemotherapy (1.4%), no treatment (75.8%).
Results
The mean age was 63.4, the Gleason score was 4+3 or worse in 24.9%, there were 2.3% unifocal tumors. The pathology stages were pT2A (8.71%), pT2B (2.80%), pT2C (69.0%), pT3A (13.1%), and pT3B (6.41%). There were 60.8% negative margins (R0) in total (90.1% for basal locations, and 75.8% for apical locations). The mean operating time was 115 minutes for the last 100 patients. The BPFSR (biological progression free survival rate, PSA≤0.10 ng/ml) was 71.9% at 5 years, and 61.4% at 10 years. The cancer specific survival rate was 99.4% at 5 years, and 98.3% at 10 years. After 12 months, 88.6% of patients did not require an incontinence pad, and 67.0% retained the pre-operative quality of their erection.
Conclusion: RELP yields good oncologic results and quality of life, as good as robot-assisted surgery.
- Prostatic Neoplasms
- Prostatectomy
- Laparoscopy
- Retrograde Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Prostatectomy
- Oncological Results
- Functional Results
How to Cite
References
Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology 1997;50:854–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00543-8.
Curto F, Benijts J, Pansadoro A, Barmoshe S, Hoepffner JL, Mugnier C, et al. Nerve sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: our technique. Eur Urol 2006;49:344–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2005.11.029.
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. https://doi.org/19921.
Abbou CC, Salomon L, Hoznek A, Antiphon P, Cicco A, Saint F, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: preliminary results. Urology 2000;55:630–4.
Hoznek A, Salomon L, Olsson LE, Antiphon P, Saint F, Cicco A, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The Créteil experience. Eur Urol 2001;40:38–45. https://doi.org/49747.
Raboy A, Ferzli G, Albert P. Initial experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 1997;50:849–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00485-8.
Bollens R, Vanden Bossche M, Roumeguere T, Damoun A, Ekane S, Hoffmann P, et al. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Results after 50 cases. Eur Urol 2001;40:65–9. https://doi.org/49750.
Dubernard P, Som P, Hamza T, Benchetrit S. Radical prostatectomy by simplified extra peritoneal laparoscopic technique. Preliminary results on 47 cases. J. Urol., vol. 167, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002, p. 348–348.
Dubernard P, Benchetrit S, Chaffange P, Hamza T, Van Box Som P. [Retrograde extraperitoneal laparoscopic prostatectomy (R.E.I.P). Simplified technique (based on a series of 143 cases]. Prog En Urol J Assoc Fr Urol Société Fr Urol 2003;13:163–74.
Rassweiler J, Sentker L, Seemann O, Hatzinger M, Rumpelt HJ. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique: an analysis of the first 180 cases. J Urol 2001;166:2101–8.
Rochat C-H, Dubernard P. The Retrograde Extraperitoneal Approach: Robotic Retrograde Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Prostatectomy (RRELP). In: Hemal AK, Menon M, editors. Robot. Genitourin. Surg., Springer London; 2011, p. 307–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-114-9_27.
Chaffange P, Pacheco P, Pricaz E, Vaziri N, Vinet M, Buttin F, et al. [Vidéo 3D, optique 30° et instruments articules : avantages pour l’abord premier de l’apex au cours de la prostatectomie extrapéritonéale rétrograde laparoscopique (PERL).]. Progres En Urol J Assoc Francaise Urol Soc Francaise Urol 2014;24:895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2014.09.013.
Walsh PC. Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique. J Urol 1998;160:2418–24.
Poon SA, Scardino PT. Open Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy. In: Eastham JA, Schaeffer EM, editors. Radic. Prostatectomy, Springer New York; 2014, p. 107–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8693-0_7.
Barré C. Open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2007;52:71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.11.057.
Walz J, Epstein JI, Ganzer R, Graefen M, Guazzoni G, Kaouk J, et al. A Critical Analysis of the Current Knowledge of Surgical Anatomy of the Prostate Related to Optimisation of Cancer Control and Preservation of Continence and Erection in Candidates for Radical Prostatectomy: An Update. Eur Urol 2016;70:301–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.01.026.
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2016.
Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, Nelson JB, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C, et al. A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score. Eur Urol 2016;69:428–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.046.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of Surgical Complications. Ann Surg 2004;240:205–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae.
Hull GW, Rabbani F, Abbas F, Wheeler TM, Kattan MW, Scardino PT. Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Urol 2002;167:528–34.
Roehl KA, Han M, Ramos CG, Antenor JAV, Catalona WJ. Cancer progression and survival rates following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy in 3,478 consecutive patients: long-term results. J Urol 2004;172:910–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000134888.22332.bb.
Coelho RF, Rocco B, Patel MB, Orvieto MA, Chauhan S, Ficarra V, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a critical review of outcomes reported by high-volume centers. J Endourol 2010;24:2003–15. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0295.
Barré C, Thoulouzan M, Aillet G, Nguyen J-M. Assessing the extirpative quality of a radical prostatectomy technique: categorisation and mapping of technical errors. BJU Int 2014;114:522–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12467.
Vora AA, Marchalik D, Kowalczyk KJ, Nissim H, Bandi G, McGeagh KG, et al. Robotic-assisted prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy for locally-advanced prostate cancer: multi-institution comparison of oncologic outcomes. Prostate Int 2013;1:31–6. https://doi.org/10.12954/PI.12001.
Ploussard G, Drouin SJ, Rode J, Allory Y, Vordos D, Hoznek A, et al. Location, extent, and multifocality of positive surgical margins for biochemical recurrence prediction after radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 2014;32:1393–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1243-3.
Cathelineau X, Cahill D, Widmer H, Rozet F, Baumert H, Vallancien G. Transperitoneal or extraperitoneal approach for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a false debate over a real challenge. J Urol 2004;171:714–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000103885.71434.02.
Leyh-Bannurah S-R, Budäus L, Pompe R, Zaffuto E, Briganti A, Abdollah F, et al. North American Population-Based Validation of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Practice Guideline Recommendation of Pelvic Lymphadenectomy in Contemporary Prostate Cancer. The Prostate 2017;77:542–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23292.
Fossati N, Willemse P-PM, Van den Broeck T, van den Bergh RCN, Yuan CY, Briers E, et al. The Benefits and Harms of Different Extents of Lymph Node Dissection During Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.12.003.
Boorjian SA, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Guillonneau B, Karnes RJ, Moul JW, et al. A critical analysis of the long-term impact of radical prostatectomy on cancer control and function outcomes. Eur Urol 2012;61:664–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.11.053.
Erauso A, Perrouin-Verbe M-A, Papin G, Volant A, Doucet L, Joulin V, et al. [Urinary continence following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: qualitative analysis]. Progres En Urol J Assoc Francaise Urol Soc Francaise Urol 2012;22:945–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2012.07.005.
- Abstract Viewed: 274 times
- 6233/pdf Downloaded: 149 times