Skip to main content

Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy

  • 1032 Accesses

Abstract

The interest in performing radical prostatectomy (RP) for the treatment of localized prostate cancer started next to the widespread use of PSA and then grew with Walsh’s technical definitions. Increasing experience on the technique and stage migration by the use of PSA triggered excellent oncological and functional outcomes. However, unlike other surgeries, RP may result in a very wide satisfaction spectrum since many factors such as patient comorbidities, tumor stage, and surgeon’s experience may affect results. In this section, diagnosis, patient selection, RP technique, complications, and postoperative follow-up will be discussed briefly.

Keywords

  • Prostate cancer
  • Surgery
  • Retropubic radical prostatectomy

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-56114-1_13
  • Chapter length: 19 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-56114-1
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 13.1
Fig. 13.2
Fig. 13.3
Fig. 13.4
Fig. 13.5
Fig. 13.6
Fig. 13.7
Fig. 13.8
Fig. 13.9
Fig. 13.10
Fig. 13.11
Fig. 13.12
Fig. 13.13
Fig. 13.14
Fig. 13.15

References

  1. Walsh PC, Lepor H, Eggleston JC. Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations. Prostate. 1983;4(5):473–85.

    CAS  PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  2. Walsh PC. Radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer provides durable cancer control with excellent quality of life: a structured debate. J Urol. 2000;163(6):1802–7.

    CAS  PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  3. Nielsen ME, Schaeffer EM, Marschke P, Walsh PC. High anterior release of the levator fascia improves sexual function following open radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2008;180(6):2557–64; discussion 64.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  4. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, Garmo H, Stark JR, Busch C, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(18):1708–17.

    CAS  PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  5. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Filen F, Ruutu M, Garmo H, Busch C, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer: the Scandinavian prostate cancer group-4 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(16):1144–54.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. Draisma G, Boer R, Otto SJ, van der Cruijsen IW, Damhuis RA, Schroder FH, et al. Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(12):868–78.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  7. Draisma G, Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, Mariotto A, Wever E, Gulati R, et al. Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: importance of methods and context. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(6):374–83.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  8. Pelzer AE, Bektic J, Akkad T, Ongarello S, Schaefer G, Schwentner C, et al. Under diagnosis and over diagnosis of prostate cancer in a screening population with serum PSA 2 to 10 ng/ml. J Urol. 2007;178(1):93–7; discussion 7.

    CAS  PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  9. Graif T, Loeb S, Roehl KA, Gashti SN, Griffin C, Yu X, et al. Under diagnosis and over diagnosis of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2007;178(1):88–92.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. Ohori M, Egawa S, Shinohara K, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. Detection of microscopic extracapsular extension prior to radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Br J Urol. 1994;74(1):72–9.

    CAS  PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  11. Lotan Y, Shariat SF, Khoddami SM, Saboorian H, Koeneman KS, Cadeddu JA, et al. The percent of biopsy cores positive for cancer is a predictor of advanced pathological stage and poor clinical outcomes in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2004;171(6 Pt 1):2209–14.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. Balaji KC, Wheeler T, Scardino PT. Poorly differentiated prostate cancer detected by PSA are more likely to be organ confined than those detected by digital rectal examination. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 1999;18:318.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kumar V, Toussi H, Marr C, Hough C, Javle P. The benefits of radical prostatectomy beyond cancer control in symptomatic men with prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2004;93(4):507–9.

    CAS  PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  14. Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol. 1982;128(3):492–7.

    CAS  PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  15. Gontero P, Kirby RS. Nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy: techniques and clinical considerations. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2005;8(2):133–9.

    CAS  PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  16. Steuber T, Graefen M, Haese A, Erbersdobler A, Chun FK, Schlom T, et al. Validation of a nomogram for prediction of side specific extracapsular extension at radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2006;175(3 Pt 1):939–44; discussion 44.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  17. Zorn KC, Gallina A, Hutterer GC, Walz J, Shalhav AL, Zagaja GP, et al. External validation of a nomogram for prediction of side-specific extracapsular extension at robotic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2007;21(11):1345–51.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  18. Ohori M, Kattan MW, Koh H, Maru N, Slawin KM, Shariat S, et al. Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004;171(5):1844–9; discussion 9.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  19. Palisaar RJ, Noldus J, Graefen M, Erbersdobler A, Haese A, Huland H. Influence of nerve-sparing (NS) procedure during radical prostatectomy (RP) on margin status and biochemical failure. Eur Urol. 2005;47(2):176–84.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  20. Masterson TA, Touijer K. The role of endorectal coil MRI in preoperative staging and decision-making for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. MAGMA. 2008;21(6):371–7.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  21. Roethke MC, Lichy MP, Kniess M, Werner MK, Claussen CD, Stenzl A, et al. Accuracy of preoperative endorectal MRI in predicting extracapsular extension and influence on neurovascular bundle sparing in radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2013;31(5):1111–6.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  22. Panebianco V, Salciccia S, Cattarino S, Minisola F, Gentilucci A, Alfarone A, et al. Use of multiparametric MR with neurovascular bundle evaluation to optimize the oncological and functional management of patients considered for nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med. 2012;9(8):2157–66.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  23. de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016;70(2):233–45.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  24. Jager GJ, Barentsz JO, Oosterhof GO, Witjes JA, Ruijs SJ. Pelvic adenopathy in prostatic and urinary bladder carcinoma: MR imaging with a three-dimensional TI-weighted magnetization-prepared-rapid gradient-echo sequence. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167(6):1503–7.

    CAS  PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  25. Wang L, Mullerad M, Chen HN, Eberhardt SC, Kattan MW, Scardino PT, et al. Prostate cancer: incremental value of endorectal MR imaging findings for prediction of extracapsular extension. Radiology. 2004;232(1):133–9.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  26. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz B, Schnall M, Schultz D, Cote K, et al. Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging as a predictor of biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2000;164(3 Pt 1):759–63.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  27. Hernandez DJ, Epstein JI, Trock BJ, Tsuzuki T, Carter HB, Walsh PC. Radical retropubic prostatectomy. How often do experienced surgeons have positive surgical margins when there is extraprostatic extension in the region of the neurovascular bundle? J Urol. 2005;173(2):446–9.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  28. Ong AM, Su LM, Varkarakis I, Inagaki T, Link RE, Bhayani SB, et al. Nerve sparing radical prostatectomy: effects of hemostatic energy sources on the recovery of cavernous nerve function in a canine model. J Urol. 2004;172(4 Pt 1):1318–22.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  29. Eastham JA, Scardino PT. Radical prostatectomy for clinical stage T1 and T2 prostate cancer. In: Vogelzang NJ, Scardino PT, Shipley WU, Debruyne FMJ, Linehan WM, eds. Comprehensive Text- book of Genitourinary Oncology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2006:166–89.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Rabbani F, Yunis LH, Pinochet R, Nogueira L, Vora KC, Eastham JA, et al. Comprehensive standardized report of complications of retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2010;57(3):371–86.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  31. Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Hebert AE, Wiklund P. Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(1):1–15.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  32. Schmitges J, Trinh QD, Sun M, Abdollah F, Bianchi M, Budaus L, et al. Annual prostatectomy volume is related to rectal laceration rate after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2012;79(4):796–803.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  33. Sugihara T, Yasunaga H, Horiguchi H, Matsuda S, Fushimi K, Kattan MW, et al. Does mechanical bowel preparation ameliorate damage from rectal injury in radical prostatectomy? Analysis of 151 rectal injury cases. Int J Urol. 2014;21(6):566–70.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  34. Anheuser P, Treiyer A, Stark E, Haben B, Steffens JA. Lymphoceles after radical retropubic prostatectomy. A treatment algorithm. Der Urologe Ausg A. 2010;49(7):832–6.

    CAS  PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  35. Harbin AC, Eun DD. The role of extended pelvic lymphadenectomy with radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(5):208–16.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  36. Kundu SD, Roehl KA, Eggener SE, Antenor JA, Han M, Catalona WJ. Potency, continence and complications in 3,477 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol. 2004;172(6 Pt 1):2227–31.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  37. Lepor H, Nieder AM, Ferrandino MN. Intraoperative and postoperative complications of radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1,000 cases. J Urol. 2001;166(5):1729–33.

    CAS  PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  38. Rabbani F, Stapleton AM, Kattan MW, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. Factors predicting recovery of erections after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2000;164(6):1929–34.

    CAS  PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  39. Graefen M, Walz J, Huland H. Open retropubic nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2006;49(1):38–48.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  40. Rogers CG, Trock BP, Walsh PC. Preservation of accessory pudendal arteries during radical retropubic prostatectomy: surgical technique and results. Urology. 2004;64(1):148–51.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  41. Haglind E, Carlsson S, Stranne J, Wallerstedt A, Wilderang U, Thorsteinsdottir T, et al. Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic versus open radical prostatectomy: a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial. Eur Urol. 2015;68(2):216–25.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  42. Di Pierro GB, Baumeister P, Stucki P, Beatrice J, Danuser H, Mattei A. A prospective trial comparing consecutive series of open retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a centre with a limited caseload. Eur Urol. 2011;59(1):1–6.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  43. Krambeck AE, DiMarco DS, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Myers RP, Blute ML, et al. Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques. BJU Int. 2009;103(4):448–53.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  44. Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, Occhipinti S, Samaratunga H, Zajdlewicz L, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet. 2016;388(10049):1057–66.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  45. Walsh PC, Marschke P, Ricker D, Burnett AL. Patient-reported urinary continence and sexual function after anatomic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2000;55(1):58–61.

    CAS  PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  46. Namiki S, Kuwahara M, Ioritani N, Akito T, Arai Y. An evaluation of urinary function after radical prostatectomy in Japanese men: concordance with definitions of urinary continence. BJU Int. 2005;95(4):530–3.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  47. Ficarra V, Novara G, Fracalanza S, D’Elia C, Secco S, Iafrate M, et al. A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution. BJU Int. 2009;104(4):534–9.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  48. Chuang AY, Nielsen ME, Hernandez DJ, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. The significance of positive surgical margin in areas of capsular incision in otherwise organ confined disease at radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2007;178(4 Pt 1):1306–10.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  49. Vis AN, Schroder FH, van der Kwast TH. The actual value of the surgical margin status as a predictor of disease progression in men with early prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2006;50(2):258–65.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  50. Simon MA, Kim S, Soloway MS. Prostate specific antigen recurrence rates are low after radical retropubic prostatectomy and positive margins. J Urol. 2006;175(1):140–4; discussion 4–5.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  51. Karakiewicz PI, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Cagiannos I, Stricker PD, Klein E, et al. Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in surgically treated prostate cancer: multi-institutional assessment of 5831 patients. Urology. 2005;66(6):1245–50.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  52. Stephenson AJ, Wood DP, Kattan MW, Klein EA, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, et al. Location, extent and number of positive surgical margins do not improve accuracy of predicting prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009;182(4):1357–63.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  53. Udo K, Cronin AM, Carlino LJ, Savage CJ, Maschino AC, Al-Ahmadie HA, et al. Prognostic impact of subclassification of radical prostatectomy positive margins by linear extent and Gleason grade. J Urol. 2013;189(4):1302–7.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  54. Roehl KA, Han M, Ramos CG, Antenor JA, Catalona WJ. Cancer progression and survival rates following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy in 3,478 consecutive patients: long-term results. J Urol. 2004;172(3):910–4.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  55. Mullins JK, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Loeb S. The impact of anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy on cancer control: the 30-year anniversary. J Urol. 2012;188(6):2219–24.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  56. Park J, Yoo DS, Song C, Park S, Park S, Kim SC, et al. Comparison of oncological outcomes between retropubic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an analysis stratified by surgical experience. World J Urol. 2014;32(1):193–9.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  57. Punnen S, Meng MV, Cooperberg MR, Greene KL, Cowan JE, Carroll PR. How does robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compare with open surgery in men with high-risk prostate cancer? BJU Int. 2013;112(4):E314–20.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  58. Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S, Ahlering TE, Carroll PR, Graefen M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):382–404.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  59. Hu JC, Gold KF, Pashos CL, Mehta SS, Litwin MS. Role of surgeon volume in radical prostatectomy outcomes. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(3):401–5.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  60. Ellison LM, Trock BJ, Poe NR, Partin AW. The effect of hospital volume on cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005;173(6):2094–8.

    CAS  PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  61. Trinh QD, Bjartell A, Freedland SJ, Hollenbeck BK, Hu JC, Shariat SF, et al. A systematic review of the volume-outcome relationship for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(5):786–98.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  62. Nam RK, Herschorn S, Loblaw DA, Liu Y, Klotz LH, Carr LK, et al. Population based study of long-term rates of surgery for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2012;188(2):502–6.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  63. Bianco FJ Jr, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Radical prostatectomy: long-term cancer control and recovery of sexual and urinary function (“trifecta”). Urology. 2005;66(5 Suppl):83–94.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  64. Saranchuk JW, Kattan MW, Elkin E, Touijer AK, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Achieving optimal outcomes after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(18):4146–51.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  65. Antebi E, Eldefrawy A, Katkoori D, Soloway CT, Manoharan M, Soloway MS. Oncological and functional outcomes following open radical prostatectomy: how patients may achieve the "trifecta"? Int Braz J Urol. 2011;37(3):320–7; discussion 7.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Haluk Ozen M.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Akdogan, B., Altan, M., Ozen, H. (2017). Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy . In: Ozyigit, G., Selek, U. (eds) Principles and Practice of Urooncology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56114-1_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56114-1_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-56113-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-56114-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)