Kondratenko A. P.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY TECHNIQUES IN PATIENTS WITH PROSTATE CANCER
Show/Download
About the author:
Kondratenko A. P.
Heading:
CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE
Type of article:
Scientific article
Annotation:
Prostate cancer (PC) accounts for approximately one-third of all cancer cases in men. In 2022, 86% of newly diagnosed PC cases were localized, and the 5-year survival rate approached 100%. Radical prostatectomy (RP) remains one of the main treatment options for localized and locally advanced PC. According to multicenter studies, the 10-year cancer-specific survival after RP reaches 95-98%. At the same time, functional outcomes largely depend on the surgical technique (open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted), surgeon’s experience, and comorbidities. This article presents the results of a retrospective comparative study evaluating the effectiveness of three surgical approaches to radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer (PC): laparoscopic (LRPE), endoscopic extraperitoneal (EERPE), and retropubic (RPPE). The analysis includes data from 2013 to 2017 collected at the State Institution “Institute of Urology named after academic O.F. Vozianov of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine.” The study assessed intraoperative and postoperative parameters, tumor morphology, complication rates, and recovery duration. EERPE was associated with lower blood loss, shorter catheterization periods, and fewer complications compared to LRPE and RPPE. RPPE was more frequently used in patients with advanced tumor stages and showed a higher incidence of postoperative complications. The findings highlight the benefits of minimally invasive approaches, particularly EERPE, for localized prostate cancer and support the need for an individualized approach to surgical technique selection based on clinical factors.
Tags:
Bibliography:
- Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74(3):229-63. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21834.
- Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Brunckhorst O, Darraugh J, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP- SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2024 Update. Part I: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2024;86(2):148-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2024.03.027.
- Carlsson S, Benfante N, Alvim R, Sjoberg DD, Vickers A, Reuter VE, et al. Long-Term Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Experience. J Urol. 2020;203(6):1122-7. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000713.
- Huang Q, Jiang P, Feng L, Xie L, Wang S, Xia D, et al. Pre- and intra-operative predictors of postoperative hospital length of stay in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in China: a retrospective observational study. BMC Urol. 2018;18(1):43. DOI: 10.1186/s12894-018-0351-6.
- Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence Following Radical Prostatectomy: Insight into Etiology and Prevention. J Urol. 2017;197(2S):S165-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.10.105.
- Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology. 1997;50(6):854-7. DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00543-8.
- Stolzenburg JU, Andrikopoulos O, Kallidonis P, Kyriazis I, Do M, Liatsikos E. Evolution of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): technique and outcome. Asian J Androl. 2012;14(2):278-84. DOI: 10.1038/aja.2011.53.
- Schitcu VH, Florea M, Marica NA, Vlad IC, Cojocaru I, Munteanu V, et al. 3D laparoscopic salvage radical prostatectomy: mini-series report and review of the literature. J BUON. 2021;26(3):964-969.
- Phinthusophon K, Nualyong C, Srinualnad S, Taweemonkongsap T, Amornvesukij T. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus extraperitoneal endoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Med Assoc Thai. 2007;90(12):2644-50.
- Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Riedel E, Begg CB, Wheeler TM, Gerigk C, et al. Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2003;170(6.1):2292-5. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000091100.83725.51.
Publication of the article:
«Bulletin of problems biology and medicine», 2025 Issue 3,178, 163-175 pages, index UDC 616.65-006.6-089.87
