Nondissection of Pelvic Lymph Nodes Does Not Influence the Results of Perineal Radical Prostatectomy in Selected Patients

Salomon, Laurent; Hoznek, Andràs; Lefrère-Belda, Marie-Aude; Bellot, J; Chopin, Dominique; Abbou, Claude C.

doi:10.1159/000052359

Cited by 19 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Salomon et al in 2000 [42] and Link and Morton in 2001 [43] evaluated that the lack of pelvic lymph node dissection does not influence the intermediate term results of perineal radical prostatectomy in selected patients (preoperative PSA <10 ng/ml and Gleason score for positive biopsies <7).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retropubic versus perineal radical prostatectomy in early prostate cancer: Eight‐year experience

Martis

Diana

Ombres

et al. 2007

Journal of Surgical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retropubic versus perineal radical prostatectomy in early prostate cancer: Eight‐year experience

Martis

Diana

Ombres

et al. 2007

Journal of Surgical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A similar study was performed by Salomon et al [33] in patients undergoing radical perineal prostatectomy. Actuarial biochemical progression at 5 years (20%) was comparable to men who had PLND performed when PSA was less than 10 ng/mL and Gleason sum less than 7.…”

Section: Clinical Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 57%

Is it necessary to do staging pelvic lymph node dissection for T1c prostate cancer?

Meng

Carroll

2001

Curr Urol Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The necessity of pelvic lymph node dissection has been questioned in recent years as a result of improved pre-treatment staging based on clinical and pathologic factors. Accurate evaluation of nodal status allows rational selection of therapy and improved outcomes. Nevertheless, lymph node dissection may play a role even in patients with low stage disease (clinical T1c) despite an overall low risk for metastases. Herein we discuss recent advances in the evaluation of lymph nodes in stage T1c prostate cancer with respect to accurate prediction, radiologic imaging, molecular characterization, and operative considerations.

show abstract

“…fast (15) ; however, this access does not allow performing pelvic lymphadenectomy. On the other hand, lymphadenectomy may not be required, depending on disease staging (16)(17)(18)(19)(20) . The present study yielded similar results as those reported in literature, such as the prevalent Gleason score 3.3 (4,5) .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis of radical prostatectomy techniques using perineal or suprapubic approach in the treatment of localized prostate cancer

Amorim

Cruz

Veloso

et al. 2010

Einstein (São Paulo)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the results of radical prostatectomy by perineal and suprapubic approaches as to operative time, procedure costs, and surgical site complications. Methods: The medical records of localized prostate cancer patients (PSA ≤ 10 ng/ml and Gleason score ≤ 6) were analyzed. Fifty-five patients were submitted to radical prostatectomy by perineal approach and 54 via suprapubic approach. results: There were statistical differences between groups as to operative time (p < 0.05); for perineal approach it was in average 114 minutes (SD ± 0.03) and for suprapubic approach, an average of 167 minutes (SD ± 0.041). Prostatectomy via perineal approach resulted in 11 cases of surgical complications, and suprapubic approach, 3 cases. conclusions: Radical prostatectomy via perineal approach took less time at a lower cost as compared to the suprapubic approach. However, there were more complications in patients submitted to perineal approach, mainly rectal lesions.Keywords: Prostatectomy/methods; Prostatectomy/economics; Prostatectomy/adverse effects; Prostatic neoplasms reSUMO Objetivo: Comparar os resultados da prostatectomia radical por acesso perineal e por via suprapúbica quanto ao tempo operatório, custo de realização do procedimento e complicações do sítio cirúrgico. Métodos: Foram analisados os prontuários de pacientes com câncer de próstata localizados (PSA ≤ 10 ng/ml e escore de Gleason ≤ 6) sendo 55 submetidos à técnica de prostatectomia perineal e 54 à técnica suprapúbica (PRSP). resultados: Houve diferença estatística entre os grupos quanto ao tempo operatório (p < 0,05). O tempo médio para a realização de todo o ato operatório por acesso perineal foi 114 minutos em média (DP ± 0,03) e de 167 minutos em média (DP ± 0,041) quando empregado o acesso suprapúbico. O índice de complicações cirúrgicas decorrentes das prostatectomias realizadas foi de 11 casos na prostatectomia radical perineal e de 3 casos submetidos à técnica suprapúbica. conclusões: A prostatectomia radical pelo acesso perineal foi realizada em menor tempo com menor custo do procedimento quando comparada à operação realizada pelo acesso suprapúbico. Entretanto, relacionou-se a maior incidência de complicações em comparação ao acesso suprapúbico, principalmente com relação à lesão retal.

show abstract

Nondissection of Pelvic Lymph Nodes Does Not Influence the Results of Perineal Radical Prostatectomy in Selected Patients

Cited by 19 publications

References 21 publications

Retropubic versus perineal radical prostatectomy in early prostate cancer: Eight‐year experience

Retropubic versus perineal radical prostatectomy in early prostate cancer: Eight‐year experience

Is it necessary to do staging pelvic lymph node dissection for T1c prostate cancer?

Comparative analysis of radical prostatectomy techniques using perineal or suprapubic approach in the treatment of localized prostate cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About