Pathologic comparison of laparoscopic versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens

被引:40
作者
Brown, JA [1 ]
Garlitz, C [1 ]
Gomella, LG [1 ]
Hubosky, SG [1 ]
Diamond, SM [1 ]
McGinnis, D [1 ]
Strup, SE [1 ]
机构
[1] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Dept Urol, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0090-4295(03)00387-X
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives. To compare the pathologic evaluation of 60 sequential laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) specimens with 60 sequential and 60 stage and grade-matched open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) cohort specimens. Methods. Of 68 patients undergoing LRP, 3 requiring open conversion and 5 receiving neoadjuvant hormonal therapy were excluded, leaving 60 for analysis. Among 72 sequential open RRP specimens, 60 from patients not receiving neoadjuvant hormonal therapy and without nodal metastases were analyzed. A third cohort of 60 RRP specimens matched with the LRP specimens for clinical stage and biopsy grade was also evaluated. Results. The specimen weight and preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen level were similar for each cohort, and approximately 75% of patients from each cohort were clinical Stage T1c. Forty-six LRP and matched open RRP (76.7%) and 39 sequential open RRP (65%) specimens were biopsy Gleason sum 6, and the remainder were primarily Gleason sum 7. The pathologic grade and stage distribution were similar for each cohort. Ten LRP (16.9%) and 12 open RRP (20%) specimens from each cohort had positive inked margins (P > 0.10). Positive apex margins were noted in 3, 7, and 7 and multiple positive margin sites in 0, 5, and 6 of the LRP, matched open RRP, and sequential open RRP specimens (P < 0.05), respectively. Conclusions. Pathologic evaluation of the LRP and open RRP specimens from patients not receiving neoadjuvant hormonal therapy demonstrated similar overall positive margin rates, but LRP had a lower rate of apex and multiple-site positive margins.
引用
收藏
页码:481 / 486
页数:6
相关论文
共 10 条
  • [1] Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Preliminary results
    Abbou, CC
    Salomon, L
    Hoznek, A
    Antiphon, P
    Cicco, A
    Saint, F
    Alame, W
    Bellot, J
    Chopin, DK
    [J]. UROLOGY, 2000, 55 (05) : 630 - 633
  • [2] Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Is it feasible and reasonable?
    Cadeddu, JA
    Kavoussi, LR
    [J]. UROLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2001, 28 (03) : 655 - +
  • [3] Perioperative complications of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: The montsouris 3-year experience
    Guillonneau, B
    Rozet, F
    Cathelineau, X
    Lay, F
    Barret, E
    Doublet, JD
    Baumert, H
    Vallancien, G
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2002, 167 (01) : 51 - 56
  • [4] Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: The montsouris experience
    Guillonneau, B
    Vallancien, G
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2000, 163 (02) : 418 - 422
  • [5] Guillonneau B, 1999, PROSTATE, V39, P71
  • [6] Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Assessment after 240 procedures
    Guillonneau, B
    Rozet, F
    Barret, E
    Cathelineau, X
    Vallancien, G
    [J]. UROLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2001, 28 (01) : 189 - +
  • [7] Guillonneau B, 2000, J UROLOGY, V163, P1643, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67512-X
  • [8] Laparascopic prostate surgery suggested
    Mitka, M
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2001, 286 (18): : 2224 - 2224
  • [9] Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique: An analysis of the first 180 cases
    Rassweiler, J
    Sentker, L
    Seemann, O
    Hatzinger, M
    Rumpelt, HJ
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2001, 166 (06) : 2101 - 2108
  • [10] Türk I, 2001, UROLOGE A, V40, P199, DOI 10.1007/s001200050463