LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: IS IT FEASIBLE AND REASONABLE? - 03/09/11
Résumé |
In the United States, prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed solid tumor among men.25 Treatment options for tumors clinically confined to the prostate include radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, cryotherapy, or expectant management, and each of these therapies is associated with a different morbidity profile. The morbidity for radical prostatectomy includes a hospital stay averaging 2 to 3 days, postoperative pain, prolonged urethral catheterization (>10 days), the risk for incontinence, and the possibility of erectile dysfunction.
To reduce the morbidity of conventional prostatectomy and to improve operative precision, several groups recently have advocated a laparoscopic technique.3 , 19 In comparison with a variety of open surgical procedures, laparoscopy has demonstrated a significant advantage in reducing postoperative discomfort, hospital stay, and convalescence7 , 13 , 23 ; however, longitudinal evaluation of the oncologic and functional results is imperative before the laparoscopic approach can be offered as an alternative standard of care. For some laparosocpic procedures (i.e., gynecologic oncologic procedures, bladder neck suspension), equivalency in these parameters has not been attained.11 , 28
Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) must be scrutinized carefully in comparisons. The standard open procedure has a solid track record and well-defined morbidity. Before it can be advocated as a reasonable alternative, LRP must match the contemporary oncologic results and low morbidity of open radical prostatectomy. It must demonstrate adequacy of surgical margins, the absence of significant risk for trocar site implantation, and similar progression-free and disease-specific survival rates.
Purported advantages of laparoscopy in reducing surgical morbidity also need to be compared with open radical prostatectomy in areas such as hospital stay, postoperative discomfort (including catheterization time), blood loss/transfusion requirements, incontinence, impotence, time to convalescence, operative time, and cost. Each of these parameters needs to be evaluated systematically before LRP can be advocated as a reasonable surgical alternative for clinically localized prostate cancer.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
Address reprint requests to Louis R. Kavoussi, MD, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Department of Endourology, Jefferson Street Building, Suite 161, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21287 |
Vol 28 - N° 3
P. 655-661 - août 2001 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?