Skip to main content
Journal cover image

Radical prostatectomy: the pros and cons of the perineal versus retropubic approach.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Frazier, HA; Robertson, JE; Paulson, DF
Published in: J Urol
March 1992

Radical prostatectomy is frequently recommended for the treatment of localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. The use of the perineal versus the retropubic approach is mostly dependent upon the experience of the individual surgeon. This study was performed to evaluate the short-term differences between the 2 operations. Between 1988 and 1989, 173 patients were identified with organ confined prostate cancer (stage A or B) who were treated with radical prostatectomy. Of this total population 122 patients underwent radical perineal prostatectomy (group 1) and 51 patients underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy (group 2). The median estimated blood loss for group 1 was 565 cc and for group 2 it was 2,000 cc (p less than 0.001). Group 1 received a median of 0 units of blood during hospitalization, while group 2 received a median of 3 units of blood (p less than 0.001). The total operative time was slightly shorter for group 1 but the anesthesia time was similar for both patient populations. There was no difference in the incidence of positive surgical margins, and in in-hospital and long-term complication rates between the 2 groups. In light of these significant findings it is our belief that the radical perineal prostatectomy is an excellent approach for the treatment of adenocarcinoma of the prostate.

Duke Scholars

Published In

J Urol

DOI

ISSN

0022-5347

Publication Date

March 1992

Volume

147

Issue

3 Pt 2

Start / End Page

888 / 890

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Urology & Nephrology
  • Time Factors
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Prostatic Neoplasms
  • Prostatectomy
  • Perineum
  • Middle Aged
  • Male
  • Humans
  • Aged
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Frazier, H. A., Robertson, J. E., & Paulson, D. F. (1992). Radical prostatectomy: the pros and cons of the perineal versus retropubic approach. J Urol, 147(3 Pt 2), 888–890. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)37413-x
Frazier, H. A., J. E. Robertson, and D. F. Paulson. “Radical prostatectomy: the pros and cons of the perineal versus retropubic approach.J Urol 147, no. 3 Pt 2 (March 1992): 888–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)37413-x.
Frazier HA, Robertson JE, Paulson DF. Radical prostatectomy: the pros and cons of the perineal versus retropubic approach. J Urol. 1992 Mar;147(3 Pt 2):888–90.
Frazier, H. A., et al. “Radical prostatectomy: the pros and cons of the perineal versus retropubic approach.J Urol, vol. 147, no. 3 Pt 2, Mar. 1992, pp. 888–90. Pubmed, doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)37413-x.
Frazier HA, Robertson JE, Paulson DF. Radical prostatectomy: the pros and cons of the perineal versus retropubic approach. J Urol. 1992 Mar;147(3 Pt 2):888–890.
Journal cover image

Published In

J Urol

DOI

ISSN

0022-5347

Publication Date

March 1992

Volume

147

Issue

3 Pt 2

Start / End Page

888 / 890

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Urology & Nephrology
  • Time Factors
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Prostatic Neoplasms
  • Prostatectomy
  • Perineum
  • Middle Aged
  • Male
  • Humans
  • Aged