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 [J].
Abbou, CC ;
Salomon, L ;
Hoznek, A ;
Antiphon, P ;
Cicco, A ;
Saint, F ;
Alame, W ;
Bellot, J ;
Chopin, DK .
UROLOGY, 2000, 55 (05) :630-633
[2]   Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Is it feasible and reasonable? [J].
Cadeddu, JA ;
Kavoussi, LR .
UROLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2001, 28 (03) :655-+
[3]   Perioperative complications of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: The montsouris 3-year experience [J].
Guillonneau, B ;
Rozet, F ;
Cathelineau, X ;
Lay, F ;
Barret, E ;
Doublet, JD ;
Baumert, H ;
Vallancien, G .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2002, 167 (01) :51-56
[4]   Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: The montsouris experience [J].
Guillonneau, B ;
Vallancien, G .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2000, 163 (02) :418-422
[5]  
Guillonneau B, 1999, PROSTATE, V39, P71
[6]   Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Assessment after 240 procedures [J].
Guillonneau, B ;
Rozet, F ;
Barret, E ;
Cathelineau, X ;
Vallancien, G .
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 [J].
Mitka, M .
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 [J].
Rassweiler, J ;
Sentker, L ;
Seemann, O ;
Hatzinger, M ;
Rumpelt, HJ .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2001, 166 (06) :2101-2108
[10]  
Türk I, 2001, UROLOGE A, V40, P199, DOI 10.1007/s001200050463