Purpose: We performed a retrospective review of our database to evaluate surgical and functional outcomes in men undergoing radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) versus radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) after previous prostate surgery. Patients and Methods: A total of 616 men underwent RPP at our institution. A retrospective review of these patients showed that 59 had a history of previous surgical approach for benign prostatic hyperplasia. A second group of 59 match-paired prostate cancer patients with a history of previous prostate surgery, treated by RRP, were recruited in the our database and was used as control group. All patients were followed up at 3, 6 and 12 months and evaluated during an office evaluation with regard to urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Results: Overall complete continence was achieved in 49 (83%), 51 (86.4%) and 55 (93.2%) RPP patients at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively, versus 39 (66.1%), 42 (71.1%) and 47 (79.6%) RRP patients, respectively (p = 0.03, p = 0.04 and p = 0.03, respectively). No significant difference was reported between the two groups in the overall percentage of preserved normal erectile function. Conclusions: Radical prostatectomy in patients with previous prostate surgery should be performed with the transperineal rather than the retropubic approach.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, Radical perineal prostatectomy, Radical retropubic prostatectomy
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel
2010
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.