The Authors present a comparison between the first 13 radical perineal prostatectomies performed in their Center and 14 retropubic radical prostatectomies, in order to describe the experience of a group adopting a new technique besides an already acquired one. The age of the patients ranged from 56 to 74 years (mean 67), the mean follow-up was 12 months. Both technique provided a disease-specific survival of 100% and absence of technique-related complicances. The perineal technique implies, at the beginning, worse –- although acceptable –- results as regards continence and erectile function and better results as regards duration of the hospital stay of the patient.
WeldonV.E.. Technique of modern radical perineal prostatectomy.Urology2002; 60: 689–94.
2.
Ruiz-DeyaG., DavisR., SrivastavS.K., WiseA.M., ThomasR.. Outpatient radical prostatectomy: impact of standard perineal approach on patient outcome.J Urol2001; 166: 581–6.
3.
LanceR.S., FreidrichsP.A., KaneC.. A comparison of radical retropubic with perineal prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer within the Uniformed Services Urology Research Group.BJU International2001; 87: 61–5.
4.
SalomonL., LevrelO., De la TailleA.. Radical prostatectomy by the retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic approach: 12 years of experience in one center.Eur Urol2002; 42: 104–10.
5.
ArtibaniW., GrossoG., NovaraG.. Is laparoscopic radical prostatectomy better than traditional retropubic radical prostatectomy? An analysis of perioperative morbitity in two contemporary series in Italy.Eur Urol2003; 44: 401–6.
