Radical retropubic vs. radical perineal prostatectomy: a comparison of relative benefits in four urban hospitals.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the oncological and functional outcome of retropubic and perineal approaches to radical prostatectomy. METHOD: Data from 1,304 patients who underwent either radical retropubic (RRP) or radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) over a 12-year period were compared. Variables included age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level preoperative, prostate volume, Gleason score, estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion rate (BTR), operative duration, surgical margin, pathological stage, short and long-term complication rates, impotence, and incontinence rates. RESULTS: RRP had a longer operative duration, higher EBL, higher BTR, and longer hospital stay. The 5-year biochemical-free survival rates were not significantly different between the two techniques. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate there are no significant differences in oncological and functional outcomes between RRP and RPP. However, RPP demonstrates minimal EBL, low BTR, and shorter operative duration.