SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

vol.31 issue2Conservative approach in major renal traumaEndourological treatment of pelviureteric junction obstruction in paediatric patients: our experience author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand




Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO
  • On index processSimilars in Google


Actas Urológicas Españolas

Print version ISSN 0210-4806


RAVENTOS BUSQUETS, C.X. et al. Comparison between open and laparoscopic approach in radical prostatectomy. Actas Urol Esp [online]. 2007, vol.31, n.2, pp.141-145. ISSN 0210-4806.

Introduction: To evaluate the differences between laparoscopic (LRP) and open radical prostatectomy (ORP). Material and Methods: From 2004 to 2005 180 Radical prostatectomies (RP) were performed, 105 laparoscopical and 75 by an open approach. Different urologists have acted as first surgeon; 51% of them, fully experienced ones in OPR,and 56% in LRP. Differences in operative time, estimated blood loss (difference of pre and post operative hematocrite), and duration of hospitalization were compared. Additionally, we have also analysed surgical and oncologic control of the specimen defined by the following variables: Malignant margins (MM) (positive margin in a pT3 specimen), and benign/malign surgical incision (BSI/MSI). Results: Groups were similar concerning age, clinical stage and Gleason score, and there are only differences in PSA. Mean operative time was significantly higher in LRP (172 minutes) versus ORP (145 minutes) (p<0.001). Difference of pre and post operative hematocrite was also higher in the open group (10.7 vs 9,2) (p=0.03), together with hospital stay, which was one day longer in the ORP group (p=0.001). ORP group had a higher rate of benign surgical incisions (48.7% vs 26.7%) (p=0.001). Regarding oncologic results, LRP presented a 5.4 % of positive margins, which compared significantly with a 16.9% rate in the open group (p=0.023). However, no differences concerning malignant surgical incisions were observed. Conclusion: With no differences in clinical and pathological stage, LRP offers a significant reduction of surgical aggressiveness on the specimen, together with a better MM control. We also observe a clear decrease in blood loss and hospital stay. Therefore, we conclude that LRP in our environment is a valid approach of surgical prostate cancer treatment in spite of a longer operative time (27 minutes) and a steep learning curve.

Keywords : Prostate cancer; Laparoscopy; Radical prostatectomy.

        · abstract in Spanish     · text in Spanish     · Spanish ( pdf )


Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License