Skip to main content

Radical Perineal Prostatectomy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Pelvic Cancer Surgery

Abstract

Radical perineal prostatectomy remains as relevant today as when it was first described more than a century ago. Despite the increasing popularity of laparoscopic and robotic surgery, not every patient qualifies for these approaches, and these patients should not be denied the option of surgical treatment based on contraindications to a single surgical approach. In these patients the perineal approach is an excellent alternative, offering ease of access, good visualization, low blood loss, ability to preserve the neuro-vascular bundles and potency, early post operative mobilization and short hospital stay, particularly to patients with low and intermediate risk disease, providing cure rates comparable with any other approach while keeping salvage options open should they be required at a later stage. This procedure is also especially relevant in developing countries, where access to first world technology and intensive care facilities in the post-op period may be limited which these patients seldom require due to the low morbidity of the surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Young HH. VIII. Conservative perineal prostatectomy: the results of two years’ experience and report of seventy-five cases. Ann Surg. 1905;41(4):549–57.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Belt E, Turner RD. A study of 229 consecutive cases of total perineal prostatectomy for cancer of the prostate. J Urol. 1957;77(1):62–77. Epub 1957/01/01.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Weldon VE, Tavel FR. Potency-sparing radical perineal prostatectomy: anatomy, surgical technique and initial results. J Urol. 1988;140(3):559–62. Epub 1988/09/01.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Kattan MW, Scardino PT, et al. Validation of Partin tables for predicting pathological stage of clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2000;164(5):1591–5. Epub 2000/10/12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pound CR, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Chan DW, Partin AW. Radical prostatectomy as treatment for prostate-specific antigen-detected stage T1c prostate cancer. World J Urol. 1997;15(6):373–7. Epub 1997/01/01.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bluestein DL, Bostwick DG, Bergstralh EJ, Oesterling JE. Eliminating the need for bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy in select patients with prostate cancer. J Urol. 1994;151(5):1315–20. Epub 1994/05/01.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris technique. J Urol. 2000;163(6):1643–9. Epub 2000/05/08.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Weldon VE, Tavel FR, Neuwirth H. Continence, potency and morbidity after radical perineal prostatectomy. J Urol. 1997;158(4):1470–5. Epub 1997/09/25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Iselin CE, Robertson JE, Paulson DF. Radical perineal prostatectomy: oncological outcome during a 20-year period. J Urol. 1999;161(1):163–8. Epub 1999/02/26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Heidenreich A, Varga Z, Von Knobloch R. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: high incidence of lymph node metastasis. J Urol. 2002;167(4):1681–6. Epub 2002/03/26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R, Studer UE. Is a limited lymph node dissection an adequate staging procedure for prostate cancer? J Urol. 2002;168(2):514–8; discussion 518. Epub 2002/07/20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, Capitanio U, Gallina A, Suardi N, et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol. 2012;61(3):480–7. Epub 2011/11/15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kattan MW. Re: updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Eur Urol. 2007;52(5):1528. Epub 2007/11/07.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Meng MV, Carroll PR. Is it necessary to do staging pelvic lymph node dissection for T1c prostate cancer? Curr Urol Rep. 2001;2(3):237–41. Epub 2002/06/27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yiou R, Salomon L, Colombel M, Patard JJ, Chopin D, Abbou CC. Perineal approach to radical prostatectomy in kidney transplant recipients with localized prostate cancer. Urology. 1999;53(4):822–4. Epub 1999/04/10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Parra RO, Boullier JA, Rauscher JA, Cummings JM. The value of laparoscopic lymphadenectomy in conjunction with radical perineal or retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 1994;151(6):1599–602. Epub 1994/06/01.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Boczko J, Melman A. Radical perineal prostatectomy in obese patients. Urology. 2003;62(3):467–9. Epub 2003/08/30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Weldon VE. Technique of modern radical perineal prostatectomy. Urology. 2002;60(4):689–94. Epub 2002/10/19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hudson PB. Symposium on the prostate. Perineal prostatectomy. Urol Clin North Am. 1975;2(1):69–83. Epub 1975/02/01.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bishoff JT, Motley G, Optenberg SA, Stein CR, Moon KA, Browning SM, et al. Incidence of fecal and urinary incontinence following radical perineal and retropubic prostatectomy in a national population. J Urol. 1998;160(2):454–8. Epub 1998/07/29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Price DT, Vieweg J, Roland F, Coetzee L, Spalding T, Iselin C, et al. Transient lower extremity neurapraxia associated with radical perineal prostatectomy: a complication of the exaggerated lithotomy position. J Urol. 1998;160(4):1376–8. Epub 1998/09/29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Boustead GBC, Coetzee LJE. MP-16.10: cancer control following radical perineal prostatectomy. Urology. 2009;74(4):S122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Harris MJ. The anatomic radical perineal prostatectomy: an outcomes-based evolution. Eur Urol. 2007;52(1):81–8. Epub 2006/11/07.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregory B. Boustead .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Coetzee, L.J., Boustead, G.B. (2015). Radical Perineal Prostatectomy. In: Patel, H., Mould, T., Joseph, J., Delaney, C. (eds) Pelvic Cancer Surgery. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4258-4_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4258-4_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-4257-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-4258-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics