Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Urology 8/2015

01-08-2015 | Original Article

Retropubic, laparoscopic and mini-laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of patient scar satisfaction

Authors: Carmelo Quattrone, Antonio Cicione, Carlos Oliveira, Riccardo Autorino, Francesco Cantiello, Vincenzo Mirone, Marco De Sio, Luca Carrubbo, Rocco Damiano, Carlo Pavone, Estevão Lima

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 8/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To compare patient scar satisfaction after retropubic, standard laparoscopic, mini-laparoscopic (ML) and open radical prostatectomy (RP).

Methods

Patients undergoing RP for a diagnosis of localized prostate cancer at a single academic hospital between September 2012 and December 2013 were enrolled in this prospective nonrandomized study. The patients were included in three study arms: open surgery, VLP and ML. A skin stapler was used for surgical wound closure in all cases. Demographic and main surgical outcomes, including perioperative complications, were analyzed. Surgical scar satisfaction was measured using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Questionnaire (POSAS) and the two Body Image Questionnaire (BIQ) scales, respectively, recorded at skin clips removal and either at 6 months after surgery.

Results

Overall, 32 patients were enrolled and completed the 6 month of follow-up. At clips removal, laparoscopic approaches offered better scar result than open surgery according to the POSAS. However, at 6 months, no differences were detected between VLP and open, whereas ML was still associated with a better scar outcome (p = 0.001). This finding was also confirmed by both BIQ scales, including the body image score (ML 9.8 ± 1.69, open 15.73 ± 3.47, VLP 13.27 ± 3.64; p = 0.001) and the cosmetic score (ML 16.6 ± 4.12, open 10 ± 1.9, LP 12.91 ± 3.59; p = 0.001). Small sample size and lack of randomization represent the main limitations of this study.

Conclusions

ML RP offers a better cosmetic outcome when compared to both open and standard laparoscopic RP, representing a step toward minimal surgical scar. The impact of scar outcome on RP patients’ quality of life remains to be determined.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, Mason M, Matveev V, Wiegel T, Zattoni F, Mottet N (2014) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 65:124–137PubMedCrossRef Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, Mason M, Matveev V, Wiegel T, Zattoni F, Mottet N (2014) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 65:124–137PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Mullins JK, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Loeb S (2012) The impact of anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy on cancer control: the 30-year anniversary. J Urol 188:2219–2224PubMedCrossRef Mullins JK, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Loeb S (2012) The impact of anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy on cancer control: the 30-year anniversary. J Urol 188:2219–2224PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Hruza M, Bermejo JL, Flinspach B, Schulze M, Teber D, Rumpelt HJ, Rassweiler JJ (2013) Long-term oncological outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 111:271–280PubMedCrossRef Hruza M, Bermejo JL, Flinspach B, Schulze M, Teber D, Rumpelt HJ, Rassweiler JJ (2013) Long-term oncological outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 111:271–280PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Montorsi F, Wilson TG, Rosen RC, Ahlering TE, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A, Eastham JA, Ficarra V, Guazzoni G, Menon M, Novara G, Patel VR, Stolzenburg JU, Van der Poel H, Van PH, Mottrie A (2012) Best practices in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: recommendations of the Pasadena Consensus Panel. Eur Urol 62:368–381PubMedCrossRef Montorsi F, Wilson TG, Rosen RC, Ahlering TE, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A, Eastham JA, Ficarra V, Guazzoni G, Menon M, Novara G, Patel VR, Stolzenburg JU, Van der Poel H, Van PH, Mottrie A (2012) Best practices in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: recommendations of the Pasadena Consensus Panel. Eur Urol 62:368–381PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Autorino R, White WM, Gettman MT, Khalifeh A, De SM, Lima E, Kaouk JH (2012) Public perception of “scarless” surgery: a critical analysis of the literature. Urology 80:495–502PubMedCrossRef Autorino R, White WM, Gettman MT, Khalifeh A, De SM, Lima E, Kaouk JH (2012) Public perception of “scarless” surgery: a critical analysis of the literature. Urology 80:495–502PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Pini G, Rassweiler J (2012) Minilaparoscopy and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: mini- and single-scar in urology. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 21:8–25PubMedCrossRef Pini G, Rassweiler J (2012) Minilaparoscopy and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: mini- and single-scar in urology. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 21:8–25PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Porpiglia F, Autorino R, Cicione A, Pagliarulo V, Falsaperla M, Volpe A et al (2014) Contemporary urologic minilaparoscopy: indications, techniques and surgical outcomes in a multi-institutional European cohort. J Endourol 28(8):951–957 Porpiglia F, Autorino R, Cicione A, Pagliarulo V, Falsaperla M, Volpe A et al (2014) Contemporary urologic minilaparoscopy: indications, techniques and surgical outcomes in a multi-institutional European cohort. J Endourol 28(8):951–957
8.
go back to reference Fiori C, Morra I, Bertolo R, Mele F, Chiarissi ML, Porpiglia F (2013) Standard vs mini-laparoscopic pyeloplasty: perioperative outcomes and cosmetic results. BJU Int 111:E121–E126PubMedCrossRef Fiori C, Morra I, Bertolo R, Mele F, Chiarissi ML, Porpiglia F (2013) Standard vs mini-laparoscopic pyeloplasty: perioperative outcomes and cosmetic results. BJU Int 111:E121–E126PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Robertson C, Close A, Fraser C, Gurung T, Jia X, Sharma P, Vale L, Ramsay C, Pickard R (2013) Relative effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. BJU Int 112:798–812PubMedCrossRef Robertson C, Close A, Fraser C, Gurung T, Jia X, Sharma P, Vale L, Ramsay C, Pickard R (2013) Relative effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. BJU Int 112:798–812PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Moran PS, O’Neill M, Teljeur C, Flattery M, Murphy LA, Smyth G, Ryan M (2013) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open and laparoscopic approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Urol 20:312–321PubMedCrossRef Moran PS, O’Neill M, Teljeur C, Flattery M, Murphy LA, Smyth G, Ryan M (2013) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open and laparoscopic approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Urol 20:312–321PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Delongchamps NB, Belas O, Saighi D, Zerbib M, Peyromaure M (2013) Prospective comparison of scar-related satisfaction and quality of life after laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: no differences from patients’ point of view. World J Urol 31:389–393PubMedCrossRef Delongchamps NB, Belas O, Saighi D, Zerbib M, Peyromaure M (2013) Prospective comparison of scar-related satisfaction and quality of life after laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: no differences from patients’ point of view. World J Urol 31:389–393PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Walsh PC (1998) Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique. J Urol 160:2418–2424PubMedCrossRef Walsh PC (1998) Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique. J Urol 160:2418–2424PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Stolzenburg JU, Kallidonis P, Minh D, Dietel A, Hafner T, Dimitriou D, Al-Aown A, Kyriazis I, Liatsikos EN (2009) Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: evolution of the technique and experience with 2400 cases. J Endourol 23:1467–1472PubMedCrossRef Stolzenburg JU, Kallidonis P, Minh D, Dietel A, Hafner T, Dimitriou D, Al-Aown A, Kyriazis I, Liatsikos EN (2009) Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: evolution of the technique and experience with 2400 cases. J Endourol 23:1467–1472PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Kazaryan AM, Rosok BI, Edwin B (2013) Morbidity assessment in surgery: refinement proposal based on a concept of perioperative adverse events. ISRN Surg 2013:625093PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Kazaryan AM, Rosok BI, Edwin B (2013) Morbidity assessment in surgery: refinement proposal based on a concept of perioperative adverse events. ISRN Surg 2013:625093PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Durani P, McGrouther DA, Ferguson MW (2009) Current scales for assessing human scarring: a review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 62:713–720PubMedCrossRef Durani P, McGrouther DA, Ferguson MW (2009) Current scales for assessing human scarring: a review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 62:713–720PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Dunker MS, Stiggelbout AM, van Hogezand RA, Ringers J, Griffioen G, Bemelman WA (1998) Cosmesis and body image after laparoscopic-assisted and open ileocolic resection for Crohn’s disease. Surg Endosc 12:1334–1340PubMedCrossRef Dunker MS, Stiggelbout AM, van Hogezand RA, Ringers J, Griffioen G, Bemelman WA (1998) Cosmesis and body image after laparoscopic-assisted and open ileocolic resection for Crohn’s disease. Surg Endosc 12:1334–1340PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Olweny EO, Mir SA, Best SL, Park SK, Donnally IC, Cadeddu JA, Tracy CR (2012) Importance of cosmesis to patients undergoing renal surgery: a comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS), laparoscopic and open surgery. BJU Int 110:268–272PubMedCrossRef Olweny EO, Mir SA, Best SL, Park SK, Donnally IC, Cadeddu JA, Tracy CR (2012) Importance of cosmesis to patients undergoing renal surgery: a comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS), laparoscopic and open surgery. BJU Int 110:268–272PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Bucher P, Pugin F, Ostermann S, Ris F, Chilcott M, Morel P (2011) Population perception of surgical safety and body image trauma: a plea for scarless surgery ? Surg Endosc 25:408–415PubMedCrossRef Bucher P, Pugin F, Ostermann S, Ris F, Chilcott M, Morel P (2011) Population perception of surgical safety and body image trauma: a plea for scarless surgery ? Surg Endosc 25:408–415PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Golkar FC, Ross SB, Sperry S, Vice M, Luberice K, Donn N, Morton C, Hernandez JM, Rosemurgy AS (2012) Patients’ perceptions of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: the cosmetic effect. Am J Surg 204:751–761PubMedCrossRef Golkar FC, Ross SB, Sperry S, Vice M, Luberice K, Donn N, Morton C, Hernandez JM, Rosemurgy AS (2012) Patients’ perceptions of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: the cosmetic effect. Am J Surg 204:751–761PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Trap R, Kehlet H, Rosenberg J (2002) Microlaparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind trial. Surg Endosc 16:458–464PubMedCrossRef Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Trap R, Kehlet H, Rosenberg J (2002) Microlaparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind trial. Surg Endosc 16:458–464PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Novitsky YW, Kercher KW, Czerniach DR, Kaban GK, Khera S, Gallagher-Dorval KA, Callery MP, Litwin DE, Kelly JJ (2005) Advantages of mini-laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg 140:1178–1183PubMedCrossRef Novitsky YW, Kercher KW, Czerniach DR, Kaban GK, Khera S, Gallagher-Dorval KA, Callery MP, Litwin DE, Kelly JJ (2005) Advantages of mini-laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg 140:1178–1183PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Gurusamy KS, Samraj K, Ramamoorthy R, Farouk M, Fusai G, Davidson BR (2010) Miniport versus standard ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD006804 Gurusamy KS, Samraj K, Ramamoorthy R, Farouk M, Fusai G, Davidson BR (2010) Miniport versus standard ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD006804
25.
go back to reference Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A, Graefen M, Guazzoni G, Guillonneau B, Menon M, Montorsi F, Patel V, Rassweiler J, Van PH (2009) Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 55:1037–1063PubMedCrossRef Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A, Graefen M, Guazzoni G, Guillonneau B, Menon M, Montorsi F, Patel V, Rassweiler J, Van PH (2009) Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 55:1037–1063PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Retropubic, laparoscopic and mini-laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of patient scar satisfaction
Authors
Carmelo Quattrone
Antonio Cicione
Carlos Oliveira
Riccardo Autorino
Francesco Cantiello
Vincenzo Mirone
Marco De Sio
Luca Carrubbo
Rocco Damiano
Carlo Pavone
Estevão Lima
Publication date
01-08-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
World Journal of Urology / Issue 8/2015
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1425-z

Other articles of this Issue 8/2015

World Journal of Urology 8/2015 Go to the issue