Contemporary Technique of Radical Prostatectomy

Perineal Approach
  • Vernon E. Weldon
Part of the Current Clinical Urology book series (CCU)


Perineal access is the least invasive and least costly approach to radical prostatectomy. Perineal rates of negative specimen margins, relapse-free survival, continence, and potency are equivalent to those with the retropubic approach (1–10). Contemporary radical perineal prostatectomy is associated with no need to routinely have blood available for transfusion (10), a single overnight hospital stay in 87–91% of patients with 95% patient satisfaction (9, 11), and a similar learning curve (12) but a 42% cost saving compared with the retropubic approach (11). Laparoscopic and robotic learning curves and costs are much steeper, without providing less morbidity.


Radical Prostatectomy Seminal Vesicle Gleason Score Bladder Neck Localize Prostate Cancer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Weldon VE, Tavel FR, Neuwirth H, Cohen R. Patterns of positive specimen margins and detectable prostate specific antigen after radical perineal prostatectomy. J Urol 1995; 153: 1565–1569.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haab F, Boccon-Gibod L, Delmas V, Boccon-Gibod L, Toublanc M. Perineal versus retropubic radical prostatectomy for T1, T2 prostate cancer. Br J Urol 1994; 74: 626–629.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sullivan LD, Weir MJ, Kinahan JF, Taylor DL. A comparison of the relative merits of radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int 2000; 85: 95–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boccon-Gibod L, Ravery V, Vordos D, Toublanc M, Delmas V, Boccon-Gibod L. Radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: the perineal approach increases the risk of surgically induced positive margins and capsular incisions. J Urol 1998; 160: 1383–1385.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weldon VE. Re: Radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: the perineal approach increases the risk of surgically induced positive margins and capsular incisions (letter). J Urol 1999; 161: 12–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Korman HJ, Leu PB, Huang RR, Goldstein NS. A centralized comparison of radical perineal and retropubic prostatectomy specimens: is there a difference according to the surgical approach? J Urol 2002; 168: 991–994.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Salmon L, Anastasiadis AG, Levrel O, et al. Location of positive surgical margins after retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for organ-confined prostate cancer. Urology 2003; 61: 386–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frazier HA, Robertson JE, Paulson DF. Radical prostatectomy: the pros and cons of the perineal versus retropubic approach. J Urol 1992; 147: 888–890.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parra RO. Analysis of an experience with 500 radical perineal prostatectomies in localized prostate cancer (abstract). J Urol 2000; 163 (suppl): 284–285.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weldon VE, Tavel FR, Neuwirth H. Continence, potency and morbidity after radical perineal prostatectomy. J Urol 1997; 158: 1470–1475.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ruiz-Deya G, Davis R, Srivastav SR, Wise AM, Thomas R. Outpatient radical prostatectomy: impact of standard perineal approach on patient outcome. J Urol 2001; 166: 581–586.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mokulis J, Thompson I. Radical prostatectomy: is the perineal approach more difficult to learn? J Urol 1997; 157: 230–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Catalona WJ, Smith DS. Cancer recurrence and survival rates after anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer: intermediate term results. J Urol 1998; 160: 2428–2434.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meng MV, Carroll PR. When is pelvic lymph node dissection necessary before radical prostatectomy? Decision analysis. J Urol 2000; 164: 1235–1240.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Han M, Partin AW, Pound CR, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Long-term biochemical disease free and cancer-specific survival following anatomic retropubic prostatectomy. The 15-year Johns Hopkins experience. Urol Clin North Am 2001; 28: 555–556.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subon MS, et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathologic stage of localized prostate cancer: a multi-institutional update. JAMA 1997; 277: 1445–1451.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rees MA, Resnick MI, Oesterling JE. Use of prostate specific antigen, Gleason score and digital rectal examination in staging patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Urol Clin North Am 1997; 24: 379–388.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Campbell SC, Klein EA, Levin HS, Piedmonte MR. Open pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: a reassessment. Urology 1995; 46: 352–355.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Messing EM, Manola J, Sarosdy M, Wilding G, Crawford ED, Trump D. Immediate hormonal therapy compared with observation after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with node-positive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1781–1788.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weldon VE, Tavel FR. Potency-sparing radical perineal prostatectomy: anatomy, surgical technique and initial results. J Urol 1988; 140: 559–562.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weldon VE. Extended radical perineal prostatectomy: an anatomical and surgical study (abstract). J Urol 1988; 139 (suppl): 488A.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tobin CE, Benjamin JA. Anatomical and surgical restudy of Denonvilliers’ fascia. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1945; 80: 272–288.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tobin CE, Benjamin JA, Wells JC. Continuity of the fasciae lining the abdomen, pelvis and spermatic cord. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1946; 83: 575–596.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Denonvilliers C-PD. Anatomie du périnée. Bull Soc Anat Paris 1836; 11: 105–107.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Villers A, McNeal JE, Freiha F, Boccon-Gibod L, Stamey TA. Invasion of Denonvilliers’ fascia in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 1993; 149: 793–798.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lepor H, Gregerman M, Crosby R, Mostofi FK, Walsh PC. Precise localization of the anatomic nerves from the pelvic plexus to the corpora cavernosa: a detailed anatomic study of the adult male pelvis. J Urol 1985; 133: 207–212.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Myers RP. Gross and applied anatomy of the prostate. In: Kantoff PW, Carroll PR, D’Amico AV, eds. Prostate Cancer: Principles and Practice. Lipincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2002, p. 12.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Villers A, McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA. The role of perineural space invasion in the local spread of prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol 1989; 142: 763–768.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Myers RP, Cahill DR, Devine RM, King BF. Anatomy of radical prostatectomy as defined by magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 1998; 159: 2148–2158.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Myers RP, Cahill DR, Kay PA, et al. Puboperineales: muscular boundries of the male urogenital hiatus in 3D from magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 2000; 164: 1412–1415.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol 1982; 128: 492–497.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Young HH. The early diagnosis and radical cure of carcinoma of the prostate: being a study of 40 cases and a presentation of a radical operation which was carried out in 4 cases. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp 1905; 16: 315–321.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Belt E, Ebert CE, Surber AC Jr. A new anatomic approach in perineal prostatectomy. J Urol 1939; 41: 482–497.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Weldon VE. Radical perineal prostatectomy. In: Carroll PR, Grossfeld GD, eds. American Cancer Society Atlas of Clinical Oncology: Prostate Cancer. BC Decker, Hamilton, Ontario, 2002, p. 193.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Myers RP, Goellner JR, Cahill DR. Prostate shape, external striated urethral sphincter and radical prostatectomy: the apical dissection. J Urol 1987; 138: 543–550.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lepor H, Chan S, Melamed J. The role of bladder neck biopsy in men undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy with preservation of the bladder neck. J Urol 1998; 160: 2435–2439.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Weldon VE, Neuwirth H, Bennett PM. Bladder neck sparing during radical perineal prostatectomy risks preserving benign prostate glands. Abstracts of the Western Section AUA Annual Meeting, 1998, p. 37.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Price DT, Vieweg J, Roland F, et al. Transient lower extremity neurapraxia associated with radical perineal prostatectomy: a complication of the exaggerated lithotomy position. J Urol 1998; 160: 1375–1378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bishoff JT, Motley G, Optenberg SA, et al. Incidence of fecal and urinary incontinence following radical perineal and retropubic prostatectomy in a national population. J Urol 1998; 160: 454–458.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dahm P, Silverstein AD, Weizer AZ, et al. A longitudinal assessment of bowel related symptoms and fecal incontinence following radical perineal prostatectomy. J Urol 2003; 169: 2220–2224.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wei JT, Dunn RL, Sandler HM, et al. Comprehensive comparison of health-related quality of life after contemporary therapies for localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 557–566.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Paulson DF. Impact of radical prostatectomy in the management of clinically localized disease. J Urol 1994; 152: 1826–1830.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Iselin CE, Robertson JE, Paulson DF. Radical perineal prostatectomy: oncological outcome during a 20-year period. J Urol 1999; 161: 163–168.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Dilloglugh O, Leibman BD, Katan MW, Seale-Hawkins C, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. Hazard rates for progression after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology 1997; 50: 93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Freedland SJ, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, et al. Percent of prostate needle biopsy cores with cancer is a significant independent predictor of prostate specific antigen recurrence following radical prostatectomy: results from the SEARCH Database. J Urol 2003; 169: 2136–2141.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Han M, Partin AW, Zahurak M, et al. Biochemical (prostate specific antigen) recurrence probability following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2003; 169: 517–523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gretzer MB, Trock BJ, Han M, Walsh PC. Critical analysis of the interpretation of biochemical failure in surgically treated patients using the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology criteria. J Urol 2002; 168: 1419–1422.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kupelian PA, Elshaikh M, Reddy CA, Zippe C, Klein EA. Comparison of the efficacy of local therapies for localized prostate cancer in the prostate-specific antigen era: a large single-institution experience with radical prostatectomy and external-beam radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 3376–3385.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Polascik TJ, Pound CR, DeWeese TL, Walsh PC. Comparison of radical prostatectomy and iodine-125 interstitial radio-therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: a 7-year biochemical (PSA) progression analysis. Urology 1998; 51: 884–890.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lu-Yao GL, Yao SL. Population based study for long term survival in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Lancet 1997; 349: 906–910.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Garzotto M, Wajsman Z. Androgen deprivation with salvage surgery for radiorecurrent prostate cancer: results at 5-year follow up. J Urol 1998; 159: 950–955.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Pisters LL, von Eschenbach AC, Scott SM, et al. The efficacy and complications of salvage cryotherapy of the prostate: J Urol 1997; 157: 921–925.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Partin AW, Pearson JD, Landis PK, et al. Evaluation of serum prostate-specific antigen velocity after radical prostatectomy to distinguish local recurrence from distant metastases. Urology 1993; 43: 649–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Leventis AK, Shariat SF, Kattan MW, et al. Prediction of response to salvage radiation therapy in patients with prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 1030–1039.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Cox JD, Gallagher MJ, Hammond EH, et al. Consensus Statement on radiation therapy of prostate cancer: guidelines for prostate re-biopsy after radiation and for radiation therapy with rising prostate-specific antigen levels after radical prostatectomy. American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Consensus Panel. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 1155–1163.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Schild SE, Buskirk SJ, Won WW, et al. The use of radiotherapy for patients with isolated elevation of serum prostate specific antigen following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1996; 156: 1725–1729.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    van der Kooy MJ, Pisanski TM, Cha SS, Blute ML. Irradiation for locally recurrent carcinoma of the prostate following radical prostatectomy. Urology 1997; 49: 65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Pisansky TM, Kozelsky TF, Myers RP, et al. Radiotherapy for isolated serum prostate specific antigen elevation after prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 2000; 163: 845–850.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vernon E. Weldon

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations