A comparison of the relative merits of radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcome, advantages and disadvantages of retropubic and perineal approach to radical prostatectomy, as performed by one surgeon.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This unrandomized study included 138 patients who underwent either radical retropubic (RRP) or radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP), based on the specific conditions or the patient's choice; 79 patients (mean age 64.6 years) underwent RPP and 59 (mean age 61.7 years) RRP. Outcome measures included estimated blood loss, the incidence of blood transfusions, positive margins and complications, operative duration, analgesic use, days in hospital and quality of life.

RESULTS

There was no difference in operative duration, and the incidence of positive margins or complications between the groups. The mean estimated blood loss in the RPP and RRP groups was 415 and 1,138 mL, respectively. The RPP group stayed a mean of 2.2 days less in hospital and took 2.8 days less to regain a full diet than the RRP group; the RPP group needed 1.7 days before using oral analgesics and the RRP group 3.8 days. Of patients in both groups, 85% were pad-free at one year and their overall quality of life was similar.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of RRP and RPP are comparable; the advantages of the perineal approach include minimal blood loss, low-intensity postoperative nursing care, low analgesic use and earlier discharge from hospital.