PDF herunterladen
Aktuelle Urol 2004; 35(5): 395-405
DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-830081
Übersicht
© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Minimale Invasivität der laparoskopischen radikalen Prostatektomie: Wirklichkeit oder Wunsch?

Ergebnisse einer prospektiven nicht randomisierten Untersuchung des operativen Traumas der laparoskopischen und der offen-operativen radikalen ProstatektomieMinimal Invasiveness of Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Reality or Dream? Results of a Prospective, Non-Randomized Study of the Surgical Trauma of Laparoscopic and Open Surgical Radical Prostatectomy P.  Fornara1 , M.  Zacharias1
  • 1Universitätsklinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Medizinische Fakultät, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Halle/Saale
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
15. September 2004 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die radikale retropubische Prostatektomie ist derzeit der Standardeingriff für die operative Behandlung des klinisch lokalisierten Prostatakarzinoms. Die operative Technik ist über Jahrzehnte kontinuierlich verfeinert worden, was zu einer Reduzierung der Morbidität und zu einer Verbesserung der funktionellen und onkologischen Ergebnisse geführt hat. Seit Ende der 90er-Jahre wird zunehmend die radikale Prostatektomie auf laparoskopischem Wege durchgeführt. Greift man die hierzu verfügbare Datenlage ab, so haben die bisher veröffentlichten Studien die Machbarkeit des Eingriffes bewiesen, der Nachweis einer geringeren Invasivität wurde aber nie erbracht. In Anlehnung an frühere Studien zur Evaluation der Invasivität verschiedener offener und laparoskopischer Eingriffe sind wir als Klinik an der seit Jahren beide Techniken routinemäßig vorgehalten werden, der Frage nachgegangen, ob die laparoskopische Prostatovesikulektomie für den Patienten tatsächlich ein geringeres Operationstrauma darstellt. Für die vorliegende prospektive nicht randomisierte Vergleichsstudie wurden an der Universitätsklinik und Poliklinik für Urologie der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg insgesamt 64 Patienten rekrutiert, die sich einer laparoskopischen radikalen Prostatektomie (n = 32) oder einer offenen retropubischen radikalen Prostatektomie (n = 32) zwischen Januar 2003 und April 2004 unterzogen haben. Die Patienten beider Kollektive waren bezüglich des präoperativen Stagings, PSA und Gleason-Scores vergleichbar. Neben den perioperativen Parametern wie Operationszeit, intra- und postoperative Komplikationen, Blutverlust und Transfusionsrate, Analgetikabedarf und Krankenhausverweildauer wurden onkologische Daten (Gleason-Score, pathologisches Stadium und die Anzahl der positiven Schnittränder) verglichen. Um reproduzierbare objektive Daten zu erhalten, wurde das Ausmaß der systemischen Antwort auf das operationsbedingte Gewebstrauma laborchemisch erfasst. Bei allen untersuchten Patienten wurden prä-, intra- und postoperativ die Marker der Akuten Phase C-reaktives Protein, Serum Amyloid A (ASS), Interleukin 6 (IL-6) und Interleukin 10 (IL-10) gemessen. Die Transfusionsrate lag bei den laparoskopischen Operationen bei 6 %, bei den offenen Prostatektomien bei 12 %. Intraoperativ musste bei einem laparoskopisch operierten Patienten eine Rektumläsion übernäht werden. Der postoperative Analgetikaverbrauch war für beide Gruppen vergleichbar. Die Krankenhausverweildauer der laparoskopisch operierten Patienten war median 12,4 Tage, der offen operierten Patienten 11,2 Tage. Positive Schnittränder waren in der Laparoskopiegruppe bei T2-Tumoren in 6 Fällen (17 %), in der „offenen” Gruppe in 4 Fällen (12 %) zu verzeichnen. Bezüglich der Mediatoren der systemischen Reaktion konnten im gesamten Verlauf keine signifikanten Unterschiede zwischen beiden Operationsmethoden festgestellt werden. Laparoskopisch radikal prostatektomierte Patienten hatten identische oder leicht höhere Serumkonzentrationen der Parameter der Akuten Phase, als Ausdruck einer gleichwertigen oder diskret ausgeprägteren systemischen Antwort auf das operative Trauma, im Vergleich zu konventionell prostatektomierten Patienten. Die bisher angenommene geringere Invasivität der laparoskopischen radikalen Prostatektomie konnte anhand der im Rahmen dieser Studie gemessenen Parameter nicht objektiviert werden. Somit muss, zumindest vorläufig, das Operationstrauma und die davon abhängige Invasivität für beide Methoden als gleichwertig eingestuft werden.

Abstract

Currently, radical retropubic prostatectomy is the standard procedure for clinically localized prostate cancer. The surgical technique has been continuously refined for decades, resulting in reduced morbidity and improved functional and oncologic results. Since the late 90s, radical prostatectomy has been increasingly performed laparoscopically. A search of the available data has found that the articles published so far have proven the feasibility of the laparoscopic procedure but never confirmed its less invasiveness. In accordance with previous studies that have evaluated the invasiveness of various open and laparoscopic procedures, our clinic, which has routinely performed both techniques for several years, addressed the question whether laparoscopic prostatovesiculectomy indeed induces less severe surgical trauma. This prospective nonrandomized comparison study of the University Clinic of Urology at the Martin-Luther University at Halle-Wittenberg recruited a total of 64 patients, who underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (n = 32) or open retropubic prostatectomy (n = 32) from January 2003 to April 2004. Both patient groups were comparable as to preoperative staging, PSA value and Gleason score. Besides perioperative parameters, such as surgical time, intra- and postoperative complications, blood loss and transfusion rate, need for analgetics and length of hospital stay, the comparison included oncologic data, such as Gleason score, pathologic stage and numbers of positive specimen margins. To get objectively reproducible data, the range of the systemic answers concerning the surgically induced tissue trauma was recorded as laboratory data. In all patients, pre-, intra-, and postsurgical markers of the acute-phase C-reactive protein, serum amyloid A (SAA), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and interleukin-10 (IL-10) were measured. The transfusion rate was 6 % for laparoscopic prostatectomies and 12 % for open prostatectomies. A rectal tear had to be intraoperatively repaired in one laparoscopically operated patient. The postoperative use of analgetics was comparable in both groups. The median hospital stay was 12.4 days for the laparoscopic and 11.2 days for the open surgical group. For T2 tumors, positive specimen margins were found in 6 cases (17 %) of the laparoscopic and in 4 cases (12 %) of the open surgical group. As to the indicators of any systemic reaction, no significant difference could be found during the entire clinical course between both surgical methods. In comparison with patients who underwent conventional open prostatectomy, patients with laparoscopically radical prostatectomy had identical to slightly higher serum levels of the acute-phase parameters, as evidence of an equal or a discretely manifested systemic response to the surgical trauma. The so far assumed less invasiveness of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is not objectively supported by the data from this study. Thus, surgical trauma and its linked invasiveness must be considered equal for both methods, at least for the time being.

Schlüsselwörter

Laparoskopische radikale Prostatektomie - retropubische radikale Prostatektomie - Stressreaktion - Laparoskopie - systemische Reaktion - Morbidität - Invasivität

Key words

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy - retropubic radical prostatectomy - stress response - laparoscopy - systemic response - morbidity - invasiveness

Literatur

  • 1 Ahlering T E, Woo D, Eichel L, Lee D I, Edwards R, Skarecky D W. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon's outcomes.  Urology. 2004 May;  63 (5) 819-822
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Anatasiadis A, Salomon L, Katz R, Hoznek A, Chopin D, Abbou C C. Urinary continence and erectile dysfunction after radical retropubic and laparoscopic prostatectomy: a prospective evaluation and comparison of functional results.  Urology. 2003;  62 292-297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Artibani W, Grosso G, Novara G, Pecoraro G, Sidoti O, Sarti A, Ficarra V. Is laparoscopic radical prostatectomy better than traditional retropubic radical prostatectomy? An analysis of peri-operative morbidity in two contemporary series in Italy.  Eur Urol. 2003 Oct;  44 (4) 401-406
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Augustin H, Hammerer P, Graefen M, Huland H. Intraoperative and perioperative morbidity of contemporary radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1243 patients: Results of a single center between 1999 and 2002.  Eur Urol. 2003;  43 113-118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Baumann H, Gauldie J. The acute phase response.  Immunol Today. 1994;  15 74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bangma C, Kirkels W, Chadha S. Cutaneous metastasis following laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostatic carcinoma.  J Urol. 1995;  153 1635-1636
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Baumert H, Fromont G, Adorno Rosa J, Cahill D, Cathelineau X, Vallancien G. Impact of learning curve in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy on margin status: prospective study of first 100 procedures performed by one surgeon.  J Endourol. 2004 Mar;  18 (2) 173-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bentas W, Wolfram M, Jones J, Brautigam R, Kramer W, Binder J. Robotic technology and the translation of open radical prostatectomy to laparoscopic: the early Frankfurt experience with robotic radical prostatectomy and one year follow-up.  Eur Urol. 2003 Aug;  44 (2) 75-181
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bhayani S B, Pavlovich C P, Hsu T S, Sullivan W, Su L-M. Prospective comparison of short-term convalescence: laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy.  Urology. 2003;  61 612-616
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bhayani S B, Pavlovich C P, Strup S E, Dahl D M, Landman J, Fabrizio M D, Sundaram C P, Kaouk J H, Su L M. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study of conversion to open surgery.  Urology. 2004 Jan;  63 (1) 99-102 Review
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bhayani S B, Pavlovich C P, Su L M. Use of a specialized prostatic urethral sound to facilitate nervesparing laboroscopic radical prostatectomy.  J Endourol. 2004 Apr;  18 (3) 289-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Biffl W L, Moore E E, Moore F A, Peterson V M. Interleukin-6 in the injured patient. Marker of injury or mediator on inflammation?.  Ann Surg. 1996;  224 647
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Binder J, Jones J, Bentas W, Wolfram M, Probst M, Kramer W, Jonas D. Roboterunterstützte Laparoskopie in der Urologie - Radikale Prostatektomie und rekonstruktive retroperitoneale Eingriffe.  Urologe [A]. 2002;  41 (2) 144-149
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Breda G, Nakada S Y, Rassweiler J J. Future developments and perspectives in laparoscopy.  Eur Urol. 2001 Jul;  40 (1) 84-91 Review
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Brown J A, Garlitz C, Gomella L G, McGinnis D E, Diamond S M, Strup S E. Perioperative morbidity of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared with open radical retropubic prostatectomy.  Urol Oncol. 2004 Mar-Apr;  22 (2) 102-106
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Cathelineau X, Cahill D, Widmer H, Rozet F, Baumert H, Vallancien G. Transperitoneal or extaperitoneal approach for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a false debate over a real challenge.  J Urol. 2004 Feb;  171 (2 Pt 1) 714-716
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Dillioglugil O, Leibmann B D, Leibmann N S, Kattan M W, Rosas A L, Scardino P T. Risk factors for complications and morbidity after radical retropubic Prostatectomy.  J Urol. 1997;  157 1760-1767
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Doehn C, Fornara P, Fricke L, Jocham D. Comparison of laparoscopic and open nephroureterectomy for benign disease.  J Urol. 1998;  159 732-734
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Doehn C, Fornara P, Jocham D. Urologische Laparoskopie bei marginalen Patienten.  Urologe [A]. 2002;  41 (2) 123-130
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 El-Feel A, Davis J W, Deger S, Roigas J, Wille A H, Schnorr D, Hakiem A A, Loening S, Tuerk I A. Positive margins after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective study of 100 cases performed by 4 different surgeons.  Eur Urol. 2003 Jun;  43 (6) 622-626
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Faist E, Schinkel C, Zimmer S. Update on the mechanisms of immune suppression of injury and immune modulation.  World J Surg. 1996;  20 454
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Fornara P, Doehn C, Fricke L, Hoyer J, Jocham D. Laparoscopy in renal transplant patients.  Urology. 1997;  49 521-527
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Fornara P, Doehn Ch, Jocham D. Laparoscopic nephropexy: 3-year experience.  J Urol. 1997;  158 1979-1683
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Fornara P, Doehn Ch, Jocham D. Laparoscopic bilateral nephrectomy: Results in 11 renal transplant patients.  J Urol. 1997;  157 445-449
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Fornara P, Doehn Ch, Jocham D. Role of laparoscopy in the lymphnode staging of urological malignancies.  Min invas Ther Allied Technol. 1999;  8 271-279
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Fornara P, Doehn Ch, Jocham D. Laparoscopy in Patients Undergoing Kidney Transplantation and Dialysis. In: Recent Advances in Endourology 1: Urologic Laparoscopy. Eds.: Yoshida O, Higashihara E, Ohshima S, Matsuda T. Tokyo Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer Verlag 1999: S. 189-204
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Fornara P, Doehn Ch, Gehring H, Jocham D. Klinischer Stellenwert der urologischen Laparoskopie vor dem Hintergrund der Invasivität.  Min invas Chir. 1999;  8 65-80
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Fornara P, Doehn C, Seyfarth M, Jochan D. Why is laparoscopy minimally invasive?.  Eur Urol. 2000;  37 241-250
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Fornara P, Doehn C, Friedrich H J, Jocham D. Nonrandomized comparison of open flank versus laparoscopic nephrectomy in 249 patients with benign renal disease.  Eur Urol. 2001;  40 24-31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Fornara P. Urologische Laparoskopie - Wo stehen wir? - Editorial.  Urologe A. 2000;  41 (2) 99-100
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Fornara P. Portmetastasen: Fakt oder Fiktion?.  Urologe A. 20 002;  41 (2) 113-119
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Fornara P, Zacharias M, Steinacker M, Doehn C, Jocham D. Laparoscopic vs. open nephrectomy. 10 years' results of a nonrandomized comparative study of 549 patients with benign kidney diseases.  Urologe A. 2003 Feb;  42 (2) 197-204
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Fornara P, Zacharias M, Wagner S. Port-site metastases: fact or fiction?.  Urol Int.. 2003;  71 (2) 136-142
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Fromont G, Baumert H, Cathelineau X, Rozet F, Validire P, Vallancien G. Intraoperative frozen section analysis during nerve sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: feasibility study.  J Urol. 2003 Nov;  170 (5) 1843-1846
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Gabay C, Kushner I. Acute-phase proteins and other systemic responses to inflammation.  N Engl J Med. 1999;  340 448
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Gillitzer R, Thuroff J W. Technical advances in radical retropubic prostatectomy techniques for avoiding complications. Part I: apical dissection.  BJU Int. 2003 Jul;  92 (2) 172-177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Gillitzer R, Thuroff J W. Technical advances in radical retropubic prostatectomy techniques for avoiding complications. Part II: vesico-urethral anastomosis and nerve-sparing prostatectomy.  BJU Int. 2003 Jul;  92 (2) 178-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Gontero P, Kirby R. Early rehabilitation of erectile function after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: what is the evidence?.  BJU Int. 2004 May;  93 (7) 916-918
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Graefen M, Haese A, Pichlmeier U. A validated strategy for side specific prediction of organ confined prostate cancer: a tool to select for nerve sparing radical prostatectomy.  J Urol. 2001;  165 857-863
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Gregori A, Simonato A, Lissiani A, Bozzola A, Galli S, Gaboardi F. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: perioperative complications in an initial and consecutive series of 80 cases.  Eur Urol. 2003 Aug;  44 (2) 190-194, discussion 194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Mountsouris techique.  J Urol. 2000;  163 418-422
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Guillonneau B, Gupta R, El Fettouh H, Cathelineau X, Baumert H, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic [correction of laparoscopic] management of rectal injury during laparoscopic [correction of laparoscopic] radical prostatectomy.  J Urol. 2003 May;  169 (5) 1694-1696
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Guillonneau B, El Fettouh, Baumert H, Cathelineau X, Doublet J D, Fromont G, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological evaluation after 1000 cases at Montsouris Institute.  J Urol. 2003 Apr;  169(4) 1261-1266
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Hara I, Kawabata G, Miyake H. Comparison of quality of life following laparoscopic and open prostatectomy for prostate.  Cancer J Urol. 2003;  169 2045-2048
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Hasan W A, Gill I S. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: current status.  BJU Int. 2004 Jul;  94 (1) 7-11
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Hoznek A, Salomon L, Olson L E, Antiphon P, Saint F, Cicco A, Chopin D, Abbou C C. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.  Eur Urol. 2001;  40 38-45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Hoznek A, Antiphon P, Borkowski T. Assesment of surgical technique and perioperative morbidity associated with extrapyramidal versus transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.  Urology. 2003;  61 617-622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Jakob F, Salomon L, Hoznek A. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: preliminary results.  Eur Urol. 2003;  37 615-620
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Kaouk J H, Desai M M, Abreu S C, Papav F, Gill I S. Robotic assisted laparoscopic sural nerve grafting during radical prostatectomy: initial experience.  J Urol. 2003 Sep;  170 (3) 909-912
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Kavoussi L R, Schuessler W W, Vancaillie T G, Clayman R V. Laparoscopic approach to the seminal vesicles.  J Urol. 1993;  150 417-419
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Kazama-Saegusa S, Kazama J J, Sugaya H, Takamiya H, Terano A, Ichiyama A, Khan M A, Han M, Partin A W. et al . Longterm cancer control of radical prostatectomy in men younger than 50 years of age: update 2003.  Urology. 2003;  62 (1) 86-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Kuriki O, Ono Y, Kinukawa T, Hattori R, Nishiyama N, Yamada S, Ohshima S. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma.  Aktuelle Urol. 2004 Jul;  34 (4) 244-246
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Lepro H, Nieder A M, Ferrandino M N. Intraoperative and postoperative complications of radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1000 cases.  J Urol. 2001;  166 1729-1733
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Leung K L, Lai P B, Ho R L, Meng C C, Yiu R K, Lee J F. et al . Systemic cytokine response after laparoscopic-assisted resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma. A prospective randomized trial.  Ann Surg. 2000;  231 506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Link R E, Su L M, Bhayani S B, Pavlovich C P. Making ends meet: a cost comparison of laparoscopic and open radical retropubic prostatectomy.  J Urol. 2004 Jul;  172 (1) 269-274
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Matin S F. Laparoscopic approaches to urologic malignancies.  Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2003 Oct;  4 (5) 373-383 Review
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Micali S, Celia A, Bove P, De Stefani S, Sighinolfi M C, Kavoussi L R, Bianchi G. Tumor seeding in urological laparoscopy: an international surgery.  J Urol. 2004 Jun;  171 (6 Pt 1) 2151-2154
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Michl U, Graefen M, Haese A. et al . Prospective analysis of continence and micturition following nerve sparing radical prostatectomy (NRRP) and non nerve sparing procedure on continence.  J Urol Am. 2001;  165 1453
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Montorsi F, Briganti A, Salonia A. et al . Current and future strategies for preventing and managing erectile dysfunction following radical prostatectomy.  Eur Urol. 2004;  45 123-133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Nakada S Y, Preminger G M, Puppo P, Rassweiler J J, Royce P L, Thomas R, Urban D A, Winfield H N. Retroperitoneal and pelvic extraperitoneal laparoscopy: an international perspective.  Urology. 1998 Oct;  52 (4) 566-571
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Nelson C P, Montie J E, McGuire E J, Wedemeyer G, Wei J T. Intraoperative nerve stimulation with measurement of urethral sphincter pressure changes during radical retropubic prostatectomy: a feasibility study.  J Urol. 2003 Jun;  169 (6) 2225-2228
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Pasticier G, Rietbergen J BW, Guillonneau B, Fromont G, Menon M, Vallancien G. Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Feasibility study in men.  Eur Urol. 2001;  40 70-74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Raboy A, Ferzli G, Albert P. Initial experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy.  Urology. 1997;  50 849-853
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Rassweiler J, Frede T, Seemann O, Stock C, Sentker L. Telesurgical Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Initial Experience.  Eur Urol. 2001;  40 75-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Rassweiler J, Tsivian A, Kumar A V, Lymberakis C, Schulze M, Seeman O, Frede T. Oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for urological malignancy: experience with more than 1000 operations.  J Urol. 2003 Jun;  169 (6) 2072-2075
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Rassweiler J, Schulze M, Teber , D , Seemann O, Frede T. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: functional and oncological outcomes.  Curr Opin Urol. 2004 Mar;  14 (2) 75-82 Review
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Rassweiler J, Seemann O, Hatzinger M, Schulze M, Frede T. Technical evolution of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after 450 cases.  J Endourol. 2003 Apr;  17 (3) 143-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Rassweiler J, Seemann O, Schulze M, Teber D, Hatzinger M, Frede T. Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution.  J Urol. 2003 May;  169 (5) 1689-1693
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Rehman J, Ragab M M, Venkatesh R, Landman J, Lee D, Chen C, Yan Y, Sundaram C P. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Washington University initial experience and prospective evaluation of quality of life.  J Endourol. 2004 Apr;  18 (3) 27
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Roumeguere T, Bollens R, Bossche Rochet D van den. Radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of oncological and functional results between open and laparoscopic approaches.  World J Urol. 2003;  20 360-366
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Ruiz L, Salomon L, Hoznek A, Vordos D, Yiou R R, de la Taille A, Abbou C C. Comparison of early oncologic results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach.  Euro Urol. 2004 Jul;  46 (1) 50-54 discussion 54-56
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Salomon L, Saint F, Anastasiadis A G, Sebe P, Chopin C, Abbou C C. Combined reporting of cancer control and functional results of radical prostatectomy.  Eur Urol. 2003 Dec;  44 (6) 656-660
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Salomon L, Sebe P, De La Taille A, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Yiou R, Chopin D, Abbou C C. Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Part I.  BJU Int. 2004 Jul;  94 (2) 238-243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Salomon L, Sebe P, De La Taille A, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Yiou R, Chopin D, Abbou C C. Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Part II.  BJU Int. 2004 Jul;  94 (2) 244-250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Salomon L, Anastasiadis A G, Levrel O, Katz R, Saint F, de la Taille A, Cicco A, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Chopin D, Abbou C C. Department of Urology, Henri Mondor Hospital, Creteil France.  Urology. 2003;  61 386-390 Urol Oncol. 2003 Nov-Dec;  21 (6) 481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Schlag G, Redl H. Mediators of injury and inflammation.  World J Surg. 1996;  20 406
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Schuessler W W, Schulman P G, Clayman R V, Kavoussi L R. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience.  Urology. 1997;  50 854-857
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Smith J A. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological evaluation after 1000 cases at Montsouris Institute. Gullonneau B, el-Fettouh H, Baumert H, Cathelineau X, Doublet JD, Fromont G, Vallancien G, Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France.  J Urol. 2003;  169 1261-1266 Urol Oncol. 2003 Nov-Dec;  21 (6) 480-481
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Stief C G. Apical dissection during radical retropubic prostatectomy without ligature.  World J Urol. 2003 Aug, Epub 2003 Jul 30;  21 (3) 139-143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Stolzenburg J U, Truss M C, Do M, Rabenalt R, Pfeiffer H, Dunzinger M, Aedtner B, Stief C G, Jonas U, Dorschner W. Evolution of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE) - technical improvements and development of a nerve-sparing, potency-preserving approach.  World J Urol. 2003 Aug;  21 (3) 147-152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Stolzenburg J U, Truss M C, Rabenalt R, Do M, Pfeiffer H, Bekos A, Neuhaus J, Stief C G, Jonas U, Dorschner W. [Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy Results after 300 procedures].  Urologe A. 2004 Jun;  43 (6) 698-707
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Su L M, Link R E, Bhayani S B, Sullivan W, Pavlovich C R. Nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: replicating the open surgical technique.  Urology. 2004 Jul;  64 (1) 123-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Tewari A, Peabody J O, Fischer M, Sarle R, Vallancien G, Delmas V, Hassan M, Bansal A, Hemal A K, Guillonneau B, Menon M. An operative and anatomic study to help in nerve sparing during laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy.  Eur Urol. 2003 May;  43 (5) 444-454
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Touijer A K, Guillonneau B. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.  Urol Oncol. 2004 Mar-Apr;  22 (2) 133-138
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Tse E, Knaus R. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy - results of 200 consecutive cases in a Canadian Medical Institution.  Can J Urol. 2004 Apr;  11 (2) 2172-2185
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Türk I, Deger S, Winkelmann B, Schönberger B, Loehning S A. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.  Eur Urol. 2001;  40 46-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Turk I, Deger S, Morgan W R, Davis J W, Schellhammer P F, Loening S A. Sural nerve graft during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Initial experience.  Urol Oncol. 2002 Sep-Oct;  7 (5) 191-194
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Aa F van der, Joniau S, De Ridder D, Poppel H van. Potency after unilateral nerve sparing surgery: a report on functional and oncological results of unilateral nerve sparing surgery.  Prostata Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2003;  6 (1) 61-65
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Walsh P C, Lepro H, Eggleston J D. Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations.  Prostate. 1983;  4 473-480
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Walsh P J, Donker P J. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention.  J Urol. 1982;  128 492-497
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Weissman C. The metabolic response to stress: an overview and update.  Anesthesiology. 1990;  73 308
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Whicher J, Chir B. Serum amyloid A. In: Ritchie RF, Navolotskaja O, eds. Serum proteins in clinical medicine. Scaborough: Foundation for Blood research 1996: 7.02-1-5
    Google Scholar
  • 93 Zincke H, Oesterling J E, Blute M L. et al . Long term (15 year) results after radical prostatectomy (RRP) for clinically localized (stage T2c or lower) prostate cancer.  J Urol. 1994;  152 1850-1957
    PubMedGoogle Scholar

MU Dr. Mario Zacharias

Oberarzt der Universitätsklinik und Poliklinik für Urologie · Medizinische Fakultät · Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg

Ernst-Grube-Str. 40

06120 Halle/Saale

Telefon: 0345/557 1446

Fax: 0345/557 1783 ·

eMail: mario.zacharias@medizin.uni-halle.de