Positive surgical margins and bladder neck sparing during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Konstantinos Zougkas, George Kotakidis, Anastasios Petas, Kosmas Marantidis, Katerina Aleksandridi

Abstract


INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study is to evaluate the result
of bladder neck sparing technique associated with positive
surgical margins in patients operated with laparoscopic radical
prostatectomy.
MATERIAL AND METHOD: We analyze data from 17 patients
with localized PCa patients treated with laparoscopic radical
prostatectomy while preserve the bladder neck. In all patients,
an intra-operative biopsy was performed from the bladder neck
while topographic histological findings, potential positive margins
and urinary continence after 3.6 and 12 months were presented.
RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 65.17 (range 56
to 70). The mean PSA was 6.14 ng/ml (range 3.2 to 10.1), and
the most common Gleason Score was 6 (range 6 to 8). In all
cases the biopsy from the bladder neck was negative. Sixteen
men (94.1%) had clinical stage pT2 and 1 (5.9%) were pT3a.
Positive surgical margins were found at the top of the prostate
in only 1 case whereas 11, 13 and 15 patients were normalized
at 3.6.12 months, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: It seems in our patients, that the bladder neck
sparing technique is not associated with the increase incidence
of positive surgical margins and can also be performed


Keywords


laparoscopic radical prostatectomy;bladder neck sparing

Full Text:

PDF

References


W. W. Schuessler, L. R. Kavoussi, R. V. Clayman, and T. Vancaille,

“Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial case report,” Journal

of Urology, vol. 147, no. 246A, Abstract no.130, 1992.

Guillonneau B., Vallancien G., Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy:

the Montsouris technique. J Urol. 2000;163: 1643-9.

Raboy A., Ferzli G., Albert P., Initial experience with extraperitoneal

endoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy.Urology 1997; 50:

-53.

J. Rassweiler, M. Schulze, D. Teber, O. Seemann, and T. Frede,

“Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: functional and oncological

outcomes” , Current Opinion in Urology, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 75-82,

J. U. Stolzenburg, P. Kallidonis, D. Minh et al., “Endoscopic extraperitoneal

radical prostatectomy: evolution of the technique and

experience with 2400 cases”, Journal of Endourology, vol. 23, no.

, pp. 1467-1472, 2009.

Gomez C.A., Soloway M.S., Civantos F., Hachiya T. Bladder neck

preservation and its impact on positive surgical margins during

radical prostatectomy. Urology 1993; 42: 689-93.

Selli C., De Antoni P., Moro U., et al. Role of bladder neck preservation

in urinary continence following radical retropubic prostatectomy.

Scand J Urol Nephrol 2004; 38: 32-7.

Piotr L. Chłosta et al. Bladder neck preservation during classic

laparoscopic radical prostatectomy – point of technique and preliminary

results. Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques

; 7/2.

Tomasz Golabek et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with

bladder neck preservation: positive surgical margin and urinary

continence status. Videosurgery Miniinv 2014; 9 (3): 362-370.

Choi W.W., Freire M.P., Soukup J.R., et al. Nerve-sparing technique

and urinary control after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.

World J Urol 2011; 29: 21-7.

Stolzenburg J.U., Kallidonis P., Hicks J., et al. Effect of bladder neck

preservation during endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy

on urinary continence. Urol Int 2010; 85: 135-8.

Bianco F.J., Grignon D.J., Sakr W.A., et al. Radical prostatectomy

with bladder neck preservation: impact of a positive margin. Eur

Urol 2003; 43: 461-6.

Choi W.W., Freire M.P., Soukup J.R., et al. Nerve-sparing technique

and urinary control after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.

World J Urol 2011; 29: 21-7.

Licht M.R., Klein E.A., Tuason L., Levin H. Impact of bladder neck

preservation during radical prostatectomy on continence and

cancer control. Urology 1994; 44: 883-7.

Azuma H., Ibuki N., Inamoto T., et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy:

six key points of operative skill for achieving better

urinary continence. Nippon Hinyokika Gakkai Zasshi 2010; 101:

-12.

Stolzenburg J.U., Kallidonis P., Hicks J., et al. Effect of bladder neck

preservation during endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy

on urinary continence. Urol Int 2010; 85: 135-8.

Jurczok A., Zacharias M., Wagner S., et al. Prospective non-randomized

evaluation of four mediators of the systemic response

after extraperitoneal laparoscopic and open retropubic radical

prostatectomy. BJU Int 2007; 99: 1461-6.

Marcovich R., Wojno K.J., Wei J.T., et al. Bladder neck-sparing

modification of radical prostatectomy adversely affects surgical

margins in pathologic T3a prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2003; 43: 461-6.

Terakawa T., Miyake H., Tanaka K., et al. Surgical margin status of

open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy specimens. Int J

Urol 2008; 15: 704-7.

Bianco F.J., Grignon D.J., Sakr W.A., et al. Radical prostatectomy

with bladder neck preservation: impact of a positive margin. Eur

Urol 2001; 40: 65-9.

Freire M.P., Weinberg A.C., Lei Y., et al. Anatomic bladder neck

preservation during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy:

description of technique and outcomes. Eur Urol 2009;

: 972-80. 18.

Touijer K., Secin F.P., Cronin A.M., et al. Oncologic outcome after

laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: 10 years of experience. Eur

Urol 2009; 55: 1014-9.

Freire M.P., Weinberg A.C., Lei Y., et al. Anatomic bladder neck preservation

during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy:

description of technique and outcomes. Eur Urol 2009; 56: 972-80.

Shin Egawa Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy as Our Bridge to

the Future? European Urology 55 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1020-1021.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.19264/hj.v31i2.265