Laparoscopic prostatectomy: where do we stand?

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is an effective treatment for localized prostate cancer. This cost-intensive and technically demanding operation currently takes longer than the standard open procedures, but with increasing experience, it is eventually associated with lower costs and is nearly as fast. As more urologists gain such experience, the laparoscopic approach may challenge the standard approaches.     

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in obese patients: feasible or foolhardy?

More than 70% of men who are candidates for radical prostatectomy can be classified as either overweight or obese by body mass index. The role for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in treating these patients remains to be defined. A wealth of experience from bariatric surgery confirms that laparoscopic procedures can be performed successfully, even in the setting of morbid obesity, despite well-defined derangements in respiratory dynamics. Using the technical modifications outlined here, LRP can be performed safely and effectively in obese patients. Obesity raises the degree of difficulty for LRP, however, resulting in longer operative times and possibly a higher rate of open conversion. For this reason, surgeons early in their LRP experience are advised to avoid obese patients until they have become facile in the performance of LRP in normal-weight individuals.     

Penile rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy: important therapy or wishful thinking?

On the basis of data accumulated thus far, it is reasonable to discuss the implementation of a "penile rehabilitation" program with patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Central to discussions of penile rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy is evidence demonstrating significant fibrotic changes in the corpus cavernosum that occur postoperatively. Several studies have been published evaluating the efficacy of various pro-erectogenic agents. The limited data regarding intracavernous injections and vacuum constriction devices suggest that an increased percentage of treated patients experienced a return of natural erections compared with patients who received no treatment. Longer, prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled studies will be needed to confirm the utility of these treatments. Data from contemporary studies evaluating the chronic use of oral phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors suggest a beneficial effect on endothelial cell function among men suffering from erectile dysfunction due to a variety of causes. Limited data suggest that this effect might be seen among post-prostatectomy patients, implying a possible role for these agents in enhancing the return of sexual function in such individuals.     

Is it possible to provide a prognosis after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer by means of a PSA regression model?

BACKGROUND: For over 15 years, studies have been done to evaluate the elimination kinetics of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after radical prostatectomy. Even though evaluation of PSA regression in the two-compartment model has become established, no clear data are currently available as to whether a statement can be made with regard to tumor prognosis from a computation of the PSA half-life (PSA-HL). This study focuses on the determination of the PSA-HL in the two-compartment model and on its correlation with the biochemical recurrence-free survival. In addition, a computer program is being developed to simplify the determination of PSA-HL. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy-seven prospective patients were examined who subsequently had a radical prostatectomy at our facility without neoadjuvant or adjuvant hormone deprivation. In addition to preoperative measurement of the PSA value (dO), PSA determinations were carried out postoperatively on days 5, 10 and 60, and at four-monthly intervals thereafter (mean follow-up: 16 months). By means of the computer program developed for this purpose, CTK.TumW, the PSA half-lives for the first (d0-d5, PSA-HL1) and second (d5-d10, PSA-HL2) compartments were subsequently determined and their effect on biochemical recurrence-free survival was assessed. RESULTS: PSA-HL1 and PSA-HL2 were 1.89 (+/- 0.03) and 3.39 (+/- 0.14) days, respectively. Whilst PSA-HL1 did not permit any prognostic statement, the median PSA-HL in the second compartment between patients with and without disease progression differed significantly (4.44 versus 3.12 days; p < 0.001). Discrimination analysis produced a cutoff of 3.8 days for the second compartment; patients with a PSA-HL2 > or = 3.8 days had a significantly worse biochemical recurrence-free survival after 18 months than the other patients (27% versus 93%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The PSA regression kinetics after radical prostatectomy follows a two-compartment model in which the prognostic value of the PSA-HL1 is limited. When a cutoff of 3.8 days is used, evaluation of the PSA-HL in compartment 2 (d5-10) appears to permit a prognostic statement. Due to the limited postsurgical follow-up, the disease process was only assessed as biochemical recurrence-free survival, and a longer follow-up will be necessary to generate data on progression-free survival.