Perineal complications following radical perineal prostatectomy

Aktuelle Urologie

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 223-225

  Fichtner, J ^a,b   Gillitzer, R ^a   Melchior, S W ^a   Hohenfellner, M ^a   Thuroff J W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER MAINZ   (Germany)

^b Evangelisches/Johanniter Klinikum   (Germany)

Author keywords

Postoperative complications; Prostate cancer; Surgery

Indexed keywords

BLADDER CATHETERIZATION; COLOSTOMY; CONFERENCE PAPER; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYSTOGRAPHY; FISTULA; HEMATOMA; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; LYMPHADENECTOMY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NERVE INJURY; PERINEUM; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RECTUM INJURY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; TRANSFUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TUMOR BIOPSY; TUNICA VAGINALIS; URINE EXTRAVASATION; URINE RETENTION; WOUND HEALING IMPAIRMENT; WOUND INFECTION;

BIOPSY; HUMANS; INTRAOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; MALE; PERINEUM; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REOPERATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 0042333275     PISSN: 00017868     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-2003-41599     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (11)

1. Partin AW, You J, Carter HB, Pearson JD, Chan DW, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1993; 150: 110-114
2. Conrad S, Graefen M, Pichlmeier U, Henke RP, Erbersdobler A, Hammerer PO, Huland H. Prospective validation of an algorithm with systematic sextant biopsy to predict pelvic lymph node metastasis in patients with clinically localized prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 2002; 167 (2 Pt 1): 521-525
3. Weldon VE. Technique of modem radical perineal prostatectomy. Urology 2002; 60: 689-694
4. Gillitzer R, Thuroff JW. Relative advantages and disadvantages of radical perineal prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2002; 43: 167-190
5. Sullivan LD, Weir MJ, Kinahan JF, Taylor DL. A comparison of the relative merits of radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int 2000; 85: 95-100
6. Burkhard FC, Bader P, Schneider E, Markwalder R, Studer UE. Reliability of preoperative values to determine the need for lymphadenectomy in patients with prostate cancer and meticulous lymph node dissection. Eur Urol 2002; 42: 84-90
7. Heidenreich Z, Varga, Knobloch R von. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: high incidence of lymph node metastasis. J Urol 2002; 167: 1681-1686
8. Frazier HA, Robertson JE, Paulson DF. Radical prostatectomy: the pros and cons of the perineal versus retropubic approach. J Urol 1992; 147 (3 Pt 2): 888-890
9. Fichtner J, Gillitzer R, Melchior SW, Hohenfellner R, Rhüroff JW. Radical prostatectomy: Increased incidence of positive margins with the perineal approach? Aktuel Urol 2000; 31 (Suppl 1): 45-47
10. Lu-Yao GL, Albertsen P, Warren J, Yao SL. Effect of age and surgical approach on complications and short-term mortality after radical prostatectomy - a population-based study. Urology 1999; 54: 301-307
11. Price DT, Vieweg J, Roland F, Coetzee L, Spalding T, Iselin C, Paulson DF. Transient lower extremity neurapraxia associated with radical perineal prostatectomy: a complication of the exaggerated lithotomy position. J Urol 1998; 160: 1376-1378