Twenty-Year Single Surgeon Experience with Radical Perineal Prostatectomy: Oncologic, Functional Outcomes and Perioperative Complications

PURPOSE: To evaluate oncologic, functional outcomes and complications in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) who underwent radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent RPP by a single surgeon between 1995 and 2014 was performed. We analyze clinicopathologic characteristics and postoperative complications including urinary continence and erectile function. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to access biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival (BFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) and log-rank test was applied. Complications were stratified by the Clavien-Dindo classification system. RESULTS: A total of 816 patients were included in this study. The mean prostate-specific antigen and prostate volume was 8.89 ng/mL and 30.8 mL. Positive surgical margin was identified in 174 patients (21.3%) after RPP. During a mean follow-up of 58.7 months, 173 patients (21.2%) experienced BCR. Overall, 44 patients (5.4%) died, of which 15 (1.8%) died from PCa. The 5-year BFS in patients with T2, T3a, and T3b were 84.8%, 69.7%, and 46.7% (p<0.001), respectively. The 10-year CSS in patients with same groups were 98.9%, 98.2%, and 79.5% (p<0.001), respectively. At 12 months after RPP, recovery of urinary continence and erectile function was identified in 88.3% and 63.7% of patients. Wound dehiscence (8.9%) was the most common complication. However, approximately 78% of complications were grade I or II. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that RPP shows acceptable outcomes in terms of oncologic results and complications in patients with PCa. Careful attention is required to prevent wound dehiscence.

Influence of perineal prostatectomy on anal continence

OBJECTIVE: Perineal prostatectomy has been proposed as a less invasive and safe procedure, but the risk of anal incontinence has been studied. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of perineal access on anal continence mechanisms after perineal prostatectomy. METHODS: From August 2008 to May 2009, twenty three patients underwent perineal prostatectomy. These patients were evaluated before surgery and eight months postoperatively using the Cleveland Clinic Anal Incontinence Score, the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Score, and anorectal manometry. RESULTS: The mean age of the subjects was 65 (range, 54-72) years, and the mean prostate weight was 34.5 (range, 24-54) grams. Gleason scores ranged from 6-7, and the mean Cleveland Clinic Anal Incontinence Score (mean±;standard deviation) values were 0.9±1.9 and 0.7±1.2 (p.0.05) before and after surgery, respectively. The Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Score did not change significantly after surgery. The mean values for anal manometric parameters before and after surgery were, respectively: Resting Pressures of 64±23 mmHg and 65±17 mmHg (p = 0.763), Maximum Squeezing Pressures of 130±41 mmHg and 117±40 mmHg (p = 0.259), High Pressure Zones of 3.0±0.9 cm and 2.7±0.8 cm(p = 0.398), Rectal Sensory Thresholds of 76±25 mland71±35 ml (p = 0.539), Maximum Tolerated Rectal Volumes of 157±48 ml and 156±56ml (p = 0.836), and Sphincter Asymmetry Indexes 22.4±9 percent and 14.4±5 percent (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: There was a significant decrease in the sphincter symmetry index after perineal prostatectomy. With the exception of the sphincter asymmetry index, perineal prostatectomy did not affect anal continence parameters.