Outpatient radical prostatectomy: impact of standard perineal approach on patient outcome.

PURPOSE

As managed care becomes more prevalent, urologists must critically evaluate the economic aspect of and patient satisfaction with urological practice patterns. We have previously reported the advantages of radical perineal prostatectomy, which decreases hospitalization and morbidity, and provides a more rapid return to normal activity, translating into cost savings. We have since evaluated the satisfaction of patients who underwent outpatient radical prostatectomy with and without laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated the charts of 250 consecutive patients who underwent outpatient radical perineal prostatectomy with less than 24 hours of hospitalization from 1992 to 1997. Complications, pain management, blood transfusion, and bowel and urinary dysfunction were assessed. Validated quality of life questionnaires were mailed to 200 patients several months postoperatively and a 62% response rate was achieved.

RESULTS

Mean followup in the series was 30 months. In the perioperative period there were rectal perforation in less than 2% of patients, anastomotic stricture in 3%, perineal fistula in 0.4% and blood transfusion in 11%. Some problems with bowel movements immediately after the procedure, such as diarrhea, constipation or soiled underwear, developed in 17% of patients, of whom up to 20% had had some bowel dysfunction before surgery. In the majority bowel problems resolved in an average of 7.3 weeks. Persistent new onset bowel trouble developed in 9 of the 124 patients (7%). The questionnaire demonstrated persistent significant urinary incontinence in 8 cases (7%). Nerve sparing was attempted in 54 patients, including 22 (41%) who achieve erection sufficient for vaginal penetration and are satisfied with sexual function. Of the patients 17% reported problems after hospital discharge that were mostly related to Foley catheter management. Overall 94.8% of patients were satisfied with treatment. Physical and social/family well-being appeared to be excellent according to the questionnaire. Only 12% of patients would have preferred longer hospitalization. The preferred method of pain control was nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Radical perineal prostatectomy is a low morbidity alternative for localized prostate cancer. Outpatient radical perineal prostatectomy may be performed with good patient satisfaction and safety. There appear to be few bowel problems after long-term followup.