If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.
It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.
Wiley InterScience | |||||||||
![]() BJU InternationalVolume 100 Issue 5, Pages 1050 - 1054 Published Online: 30 Aug 2007 © 2010 BJU International
Abstract | References | Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 238K) | Related Articles | Citation Tracking Seminal vesicle-sparing perineal radical prostatectomy improves early functional results in patients with low-risk prostate cancer Copyright © 2007 THE AUTHORS; JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2007 BJU INTERNATIONAL KEYWORDS prostate cancer • radical prostatectomy • perineal • nerve-sparing • seminal vesicle-sparing Study Type – Therapy (RCT) Level of Evidence 1b
OBJECTIVE
To report a new and improved seminal vesicle-sparing (SV) technique of radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) as an option for patients with localized prostate cancer, which is currently competing with the retropubic RP (RRP), endoscopic and robotic approaches. PATIENTS AND METHODSFrom July 2003 to July 2006, 507 RPs were undertaken within a three-arm, unrandomized phase II trial. Patients were selected for RPP if they had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of ≤10 ng/mL, a Gleason sum of ≤7 and a prostate volume of ≤50 mL. This group was randomly divided in those having SV-RPP (147 men) and a classical RPP (171); men in the third group with adverse factors were offered a classical RRP (190). The main endpoint of the trial was the early continence rate at 4 weeks after surgery. RESULTSThe oncological outcome of patients treated with SV-RPP was no different from that of RPP or RRP. Continence rates (0–1 pad/day) at 4 weeks and 12 months after SV-RPP were 61.7% and 96.3%, respectively, and significantly higher than with RPP (P < 0.023) and RRP (P < 0.005). The transfusion rates (3.4%), anastomotic leaks (6.6%) and mean operative duration (90 min) were significantly lower. CONCLUSIONSSV-RPP is a better technique in reducing complications during and after surgery for selected patients. Leaving the SV in place did not increase the short-term PSA relapse rates. As the operation was significantly faster and with better early recovery, SV-RPP might be justified if the long-term oncological data confirm the efficacy of the approach. Accepted for publication 25 May 2007 |