Randomized Control Trial; In cases of extra-peritoneal approach of either laparoscopic radical prostatectomy or robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Is routine cystography necessary?
Keywords:
prostatic neoplasm, cystography, laparoscopic radical prostatectomyAbstract
Objectives: To evaluate the necessity of routine cystography prior to removal of urinary catheter after postoperative day 7 in prostate cancer patients, who underwent, either extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (ELRP), or extraperitoneal robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (ERALRP).
Materials and Methods: Between May 2008 and March 2009. Patients who underwent either ELRP or ERALRP will be randomized into 2 groups by sealed envelops. In control group, patients will be evaluated by cystography at postoperative day 7. In study group, urethral catheter will be removed on postoperative day 7 without cystography. Patients of both groups will be discharged and followed up at postoperative day 14 and 28 for evaluation by ultrasound, IPSS and clinical symptoms.
Results: This study enrolls total 70 patients who underwent either ELRP or ERALRP. There were 35 patients in control group and 35 patients in study group. 4 of 35 patients were found to have contrast leakage during cystography. There was no other significant difference of clinical symptoms, IPSS between both groups. But, there was significant difference of catheterization time. (p < 0.05).
Conclusions: Routine cystography on postoperative day 7 seems to be not beneficial to the patients underwent extraperitoneal approach for both laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.
References
Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Smigal C, Thun MJ. Cancer Statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 2006; 56: 106-30.
Newcomer LM, Stanford JL, Blumenstein BA, Brawer MK. Temporal trends in rates of prostate cancer: declining incidence of advanced stage disease, 1974 to 1994. J Urol 1997; 158(4): 1427-30.
Derweesh IH, Kupelian PA, Zippe C, Levin HS, Brainard J, Magi-Galluzzi C, et al. Continuing trends in pathological stage migration in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol Oncol 2004; 22 (4): 300-6.
Hankey BF, Feuer EJ, Clegg LX, Hayes RB, Legler JM, Prorok PC, et al. Cancer surveillance series: Interpreting trends in prostate cancer-part I: Evidence of the effects of screening in recent prostate cancer incidence, mortality, and survival rates. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91(12): 1017-24.
Walsh PC. The status of radical prostatectomy in the United States in 1993: where do we go from here? J Urol 1994; 152: 1816
Patel R, Lepor H. Removal of the urinary catheter on postoperative days 3 and 4 following radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2003; 61: 156-60.
Nadu A, Salomon L, Hoznek A, et al. Early removal of the catheter after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2001; 166: 1662-4.
Nualyong C, Srinualnad S, Taweemonkongsap T, Amornvesukit T, Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: preliminary result of Thailand series. J Med Assoc Thai 2006; 89: 1440-6.
Srinualnad S, Nualyong C, Udompunturak S, Kongsuwan W, Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): a new approach for treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Med Assoc Thai 2006; 89: 1601-8.
