Publication: Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): A new approach for treatment of localized prostate cancer
Issued Date
2006-10-01
Resource Type
ISSN
01252208
01252208
01252208
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-33751016082
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand. Vol.89, No.10 (2006), 1601-1608
Suggested Citation
Sittiporn Srinualnad, Chaiyong Nualyong, Suthipol Udompunturak, Wanvimol Kongsuwan Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): A new approach for treatment of localized prostate cancer. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand. Vol.89, No.10 (2006), 1601-1608. Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/23554
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): A new approach for treatment of localized prostate cancer
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is usually performed by transperitoneal approach. Patients may encounter, intraperitoneal organs injury, and prolonged ileus during recovery period. The authors firstly performed endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE) in Thailand, which is mimicking open radical prostatectomy, the gold standard for treatment of localized prostate cancer. Objective: Assess and evaluate the feasibility and early outcomes of the authors' experience in endoscopic extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (EERPE). Material and Method: From December 2005 to May 2006, 27 cases of EERPE were performed at the authors' institute for clinically localized prostate cancer by one surgeon (group I). Operative data was compared to those 55 patients who underwent open radical prostatectomy from February 2001 to August 2005 for early prostate cancer by the same surgeon (group II). Early postoperative results, clinical outcomes and complication were analyzed between the two groups using Chi-Square, student unpaired t-test and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: Patients' age and clinical staging were not different between the two groups. Mean operative time was longer in the EERPE group (268 minutes vs 157 minutes; p < 0.01). Median blood loss was 500 mls and 1000 mls in the EERPE and open groups, respectively (p < 0.001). The likelihood of transfusion rate in the open group was higher than the EERPE group, with odd ratio of 8.75 (95%CI = 2.09-39.86), p = 0.001. Hospitalization time and pathological stage were not different between the two groups. In the EERPE group, there were two rectal complications, including rectal injury and rectal necrosis, which were treated laparoscopically and conservatively without long-term problems. Conclusion: The authors' early experience has shown that EERPE is feasible. Although operative time was longer, the patients may gain benefit of minimally invasive surgery and decreased operative blood loss. In EERPE group, oncological outcomes are equal to open surgery, however, more cases and long-term follow up are required to evaluate the efficacy of such an approach.