Radical prostatectomy outcomes of prostate cancer cases: Insights from a leading surgeon's experience in Azerbaijan

Submitted: October 15, 2024
Accepted: October 21, 2024
Published: December 18, 2024
Abstract Views: 1
PDF: 1
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

Objective: Prostate cancer is a significant health concern worldwide and ranks as the 4th most frequent cancer among men in Azerbaijan. While robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is the preferred surgical technique in many countries, open retropubic radical prostatectomy (ORP) remains the primary treatment option in Azerbaijan due to limited access to robotic surgical systems. This study aims to analyze the outcomes of ORP in patients with local and locally advanced prostate cancer.

Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 95 men who underwent extraperitoneal retropubic ORP for prostate cancer at our center between May 2020 and December 2023. Comprehensive data on patient demographics, preoperative parameters, surgical details, and postoperative outcomes were collected. Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS 27.0 software.

Results: The mean age of the patients was 65.9 years. The median preoperative PSA level was 14.8 ng/mL, and lymph node enlargement was identified in 29.5% of patients. A rectal injury occurred in one patient (1.1%) as the only intraoperative complication. The mean intraoperative blood loss was 330 mL, and the median hospital stay was 6 days. A positive surgical margin was observed in 38.9% of cases. Diabetes mellitus and higher intraoperative blood loss were associated with prolonged hospital stays (≥ 7 days). Erectile dysfunction was reported in 52.6% of patients 6 months postoperatively, while urinary incontinence was observed in 2.2%.

Conclusions: ORP outcomes in Azerbaijan are comparable to those reported for laparoscopic and robot-assisted techniques in terms of perioperative and oncological results. Despite the absence of advanced surgical technology, ORP remains an effective treatment option for prostate cancer when performed by experienced surgeons.

Dimensions

Altmetric

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

Ferlay J, Ervik M, Lam F, et al. (2024). Global Cancer Observatory: Cancer Today. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. Available from: https://gco.iarc.who.int/today. accessed [30.09.2024].
Costello AJ. Considering the role of radical prostatectomy in 21st century prostate cancer care. Nat Rev Urol. 2020; 17:177-88.
Loeb S, Catalona WJ. Open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2007; 25:494-8.
Healy KA, Gomella LG. Retropubic, laparoscopic, or robotic radical prostatectomy: is there any real difference? Semin Oncol. 2013; 40:286-96.
Lepor H. Radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urol Clin North Am. 2001; 28:509-19, viii.
Çelen S, Özlülerden Y, Mete A, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single surgeon’s experience in 80 cases after 2 years of formal training. African J Urol. 2021; 27:57.
Pereira R, Joshi A, Roberts M, et al. Open retropubic radical prostatectomy. Transl Androl Urol. 2020; 9:3025-35.
Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet. 2016; 388:1057-66.
Djavan B, Agalliu I, Laze J, et al. Blood loss during radical prostatectomy: impact on clinical, oncological and functional outcomes and complication rates. BJU Int. 2012; 110:69-75.
Leitão TP, Papatsoris AG, Mandron E. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A prospective 2-year single-surgeon experience with 171 cases. Arab J Urol. 2012; 10:347-52.
Lantz A, Bock D, Akre O, et al. Functional and Oncological Outcomes After Open Versus Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for Localised Prostate Cancer: 8-Year Follow-up. Eur Urol. 2021; 80:650-60.
Coughlin GD, Yaxley JW, Chambers SK, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: 24-month outcomes from a randomised controlled study. Lancet Oncol. 2018; 19:1051-60.
Ficarra V, Novara G, Fracalanza S, et al. A prospective, nonrandomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution. BJU Int. 2009; 104:534-9.
Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2009; 55:1037-63.
Tward JD, Lee CM, Pappas LM, et al. Survival of men with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with prostatectomy, brachytherapy, or no definitive treatment: impact of age at diagnosis. Cancer. 2006; 107:2392-400.
Pompe RS, Tian Z, Preisser F, et al. Short- and Long-term Functional Outcomes and Quality of Life after Radical Prostatectomy: Patient-reported Outcomes from a Tertiary High-volume Center. Eur Urol Focus. 2017; 3:615-20.
Mallén E, Gil P, Sancho C, et al. Atypical small acinar proliferation: review of a series of 64 patients. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2006; 40:272-5.
Brausi M, Castagnetti G, Dotti A, et al. Immediate radical prostatectomy in patients with atypical small acinar proliferation. Over treatment? J Urol. 2004;172:906-8.
Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-EANMESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2024 Update. Part I: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2024; 86:148-63.

How to Cite

Sholan, R. (2024). Radical prostatectomy outcomes of prostate cancer cases: Insights from a leading surgeon’s experience in Azerbaijan. Archivio Italiano Di Urologia E Andrologia, 96(4). https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2024.13257