Erratum: Evaluation of Perioperative Clinical Parameters and Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Radical Perineal or Retropubic Prostatectomy: A Prospective Randomized Study

Year 2024, Volume: 19 Issue: 3, 157 - 158, 30.10.2024

Utku Can , Alper Coskun

The original article was published on February 27, 2024. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/newurology/issue/84673/1490230

Erratum Note

In the first published version of this article (1), the following erroneous text was deleted from the use of sources in paragraph 3 of the Introduction; “as a historical open procedure, is modified to incorporate contemporary surgical ideas. There is relatively little in the literature regarding modern adaptations of perineal prostatectomy. This method of anatomic radical perineal prostatectomy has been developed to accomplish a minimally invasive method of achieving goals of disease control and preservation of genito-urinary functions.\n\nMETHODS: Prospective outcome data is accumulated on 508 consecutive radical perineal prostatectomies by a single surgeon. Pathologic stage and PSA detectability are measures of cancer control. Pad use and ability to complete intercourse measure urinary and sexual function. General complications and other outcome measures are evaluated.\n\nRESULTS: Freedom from PSA detectability by pathologic stage is 96.3%, 79.4%, and 69.4% for organ confined, specimen confined and margin positive in the absence of seminal vesical invasion with an average 4 years follow up (3-114 months”. The author’s request for an addition to the information section has been accepted and the following information has been added; This article is derived from the 2016 dissertation by Corresponding Author U Can. I would like to extend my gratitude to Cemal Göktaş for his invaluable contribution to the thesis process. Funding Sources: This article has no funding source. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. All authors have agreed to be so listed and have seen and approved the manuscript, its consent and submission. Ethical Approval: Ethical approval was obtained from the Dr.Lütfü Kırdar Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, on March 26, 2015, with protocol number 514/62/17. Author Contribution: U Can; Protocol/project development, Data collection or management, Data analysis, Manuscript writing/editing. A Coskun; Data collection or management, Manuscript writing/editing. The authors take full responsibility for this confusion, and they apologize for the confusion.   Publisher’s Note: The original article has been corrected, and a correction note was added.

Abstract

Objective: The objective of study is to investigate the effects of radical retropubic and perineal prostatectomy methods in addition to the effect of pelvic lymph node dissection on perioperative morbidities, oncological outcomes and 1-year quality of life in patients with clinically local stage prostate cancer.
Material and methods: Patients admitted to our clinic between January 2013 and March 2015 and diagnosed with clinically localized stage prostate cancer were included. A total of 103 patients were randomized into 3 groups in which 38 patients received radical perineal prostatectomy(RPP), 31 had radical retropubic prostatectomy(RRP), and 34 RRP with pelvic lymph node dissection(PLND).Age, comorbidities, preoperative Gleason scores and serum prostate-specific antigen(PSA) data as well as the surgical parameters, clinical and pathological stages, and 1-year follow-up data were recorded for each patient.“Extended prostate cancer index composite (EPIC)” and “SF-12v2™ Health Survey(Version 2.0)” questionnaires were used for overall and disease-specific quality of life at month 0, 1, 6 and 12 visits.
Results: No difference was found between the groups with regard to preoperative data such as age, serum PSA levels, clinical stage, biopsy Gleason score and Charlson comorbidity index while intraoperative data for the amount of bleeding and the average amount of transfusion were significantly lower in RPP group(RPP:645cc, RRP:960cc, RRP+PLND:890cc).1-year recurrence-free survivals for RPP, RRP, and RRP+PLND groups were 9.9 months, 11.2 months and 10.2 months, respectively, with no significant difference.Overall and prostate cancer-specific quality of life was similar for all 3 groups.No additional benefit with nerve-sparing surgery was shown in any of the groups in terms of incontinence and erectile functions.
Conclusion: Perineal dissection is beneficial in terms of the amount of bleeding and blood transfusion while prolonged postoperative drainage and wound infection rates are higher compared to retropubic approach.All 3 groups were similar in urinary, sexual, gastrointestinal and hormonal functions as well as the quality of life.

Keywords

prostatectomy, prostate cancer, perineal, retropubic, quality of life

Ethical Statement

Ethical Approval: Ethical approval was obtained from the Dr.Lütfü Kırdar Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, on March 26, 2015, with protocol number 514/62/17.

Supporting Institution

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Thanks

This article is derived from the 2016 dissertation by Corresponding Author U Can. I would like to extend my gratitude to Cemal Göktaş for his invaluable contribution to the thesis process.

References

• 1. Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z et al. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. Jan ;64(1):9-29. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21208
• 2. Arnold, M. Recent trends in incidence of five common cancers in 26 European countries since 1988: Analysis of the European Cancer Observatory. Eur J Cancer, 2015 51: 1164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2013.09.002
• 3. Perrotti M, Pantuck A, Rabbani F, et al. Review of staging modalities in clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology. 1999;54(2):208-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(99)00170-3
• 4. Moul JW. Treatment options for prostate cancer. Part I. Stage, grade, PSA, and changes in the 1990s. Am J Manag Care 1998;4: 1031-1036.
• 5. Partin a W, Kattan MW, Subong EN, et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. 1997;277:1445-51.https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03540420041027
• 6. Briganti, A. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol, 2012 61: 480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.10.044
• 7. Daimon T, Miyajima A, Maeda T, et al. Does pelvic lymph node dissection improve the biochemical relapse-free survival in low-risk prostate cancer patients treated by laparoscopic radical prostatectomy? Journal of endourology / Endourological Society. 2012;26(9):1199-202.https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0589
• 8. VE W, FR T. Potency sparing radical perineal prostatectomy: Anatomy, surgical technique, and initial results. J Urol 1988;140:559-562. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)41718-6
• 9. Akca O, Zargar H, Kaouk JH. Robotic Surgery Revives Radical Perineal Prostatectomy. European Urology . 2015 Aug;68(2):340- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.03.001
• 10. Tugcu V, Akca O, Simsek A, et al. Robotic perineal radical prostatectomy and robotic pelvic lymph node dissection via a perineal approach: The Tugcu Bakirkoy Technique. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology. 2018 Feb 28;44(2):114-8. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2018.24603
• 11. Harris MJ. Radical perineal prostatectomy: cost efficient, outcome effective, minimally invasive prostate cancer management. European urology. 2003 Sep;44(3):303-8; discussion 308. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0302-2838(03)00298-7
• 12. Prasad SM, Gu X, Lavelle R, et al. Comparative effectiveness of perineal versus retropubic and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. Vol. 185, Journal of Urology. 2011. p. 111-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.08.090
• 13. Martis G, Diana M, Ombres M, et al. Retropubic versus perineal radical prostatectomy in early prostate cancer: eight-year experience. Journal of surgical oncology . 2007 May 1;95(6):513-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.20714
• 14. Namiki S, Egawa S, Terachi T et al. Changes in quality of life in first year after radical prostatectomy by retropubic, laparoscopic, and perineal approach: Multi-institutional longitudinal study in Japan. Urology 2006;67:321-327 Epub 2006 Jan 26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.09.004
• 15. Lance RS, Freidrichs PA, Kane C, et al. A comparison of radical retropubic with perineal prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer within the Uniformed Services Urology Research Group. BJU International. 2001;87(1):61-5. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.00023.x
• 16. Sculpher M, Bryan S, Fry P, et al. Patients’ preferences for the management of non-metastatic prostate cancer: discrete choice experiment. BMJ (Clinical research ed) . 2004 Feb 14;328(7436):382. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.37972.497234.44
• 17. Wei J, Dunn R, Litwin M, et al. “Development and Validation of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) for Comprehensive Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life in Men with Prostate Cancer”, Urology. 56: 899-905, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00858-X
• 18. Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical care. 1996 ;34(3):220-33. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003
• 19. Salomon L, Levrel O, de la Taille A et al. Radical Prostatectomy by the Retropubic, Perineal and Laparoscopic Approach: 12 Years of Experience in One Center. European Urology. 2002;42(2):104-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0302-2838(02)00263-4
• 20. Sullivan LD, Weir MJ, Kinahan JF, et al. A comparison of the relative merits of radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU International. 2000;85(1):95-100. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.2000.00405.x
• 21. Salomon L, Anastasiadis AG, Levrel O, et al. Location of positive surgical margins after retropubic, perineal, and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for organ-confined prostate cancer. Urology. 2003;61(2):386-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(02)02255-0
• 22. Boccon-Gıbod L, Ravery V, Vordos D, et al. Radıcal Prostatectomy For Prostate Cancer: The Perıneal Approach Increases The Rısk Of Surgıcally Induced Posıtıve Margıns And Capsular Incısıons. The Journal of Urology. 1998;160(4):1383-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)62543-6
• 23. Penson DF, Feng Z, Kuniyuki A, et al. General quality of life 2 years following treatment for prostate cancer: what influences outcomes? Results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology [Internet]. 2003 Mar 15;21(6):1147-54. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2003.07.139
• 24. Potosky AL, Harlan LC, Stanford JL, et al. Prostate cancer practice patterns and quality of life: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1999 Oct 20;91(20):1719-24. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/91.20.1719
• 25. Stanford JL, Feng Z, Hamilton AS, et al. Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. JAMA . 2000 Jan 19;283(3):354-60. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.3.354
• 26. Mirza M, Art K, Wineland L, et al. A comparison of radical perineal, radical retropubic, and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomies in a single surgeon series. Prostate cancer . 2011;2011:878323. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/878323
• 27. Walsh PC, Marschke P, Ricker D,et al.Patient reported urinary continence and sexual function after anatomic radical prostatectomy.Urology 2000;55:58-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(99)00397-0
• 28. Mulhall JP, Parker M, Waters BW, et al. The timing of penile rehabilitation after bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy affects the recovery of erectile function. BJU international. 2010 Jan;105(1):37-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08775.x
• 29. Allaf ME, Partin AW, Carter HB. The importance of pelvic lymph node dissection in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Reviews in urology. 2006;8(3):112-9