Surgical anatomy of the puboprostatic complex with special reference to radical perineal prostatectomy

BJU International

Volumn 92, Issue 7, 2003, Pages 681-684

  Wimpissinger, T F ^a,b   Tschabitscher, M ^a   Feichtinger, H ^a   Stackl, W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^b KRANKENANSTALT RUDOLFSTIFTUNG   (Austria)

Author keywords

Anatomy; Puboprostatic ligaments; Radical perineal prostatectomy; Veins

Indexed keywords

ANATOMICAL VARIATION; ARTICLE; CADAVER; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; HUMAN TISSUE; INTRAOPERATIVE PERIOD; LIGAMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PERINEUM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE; PROSTATECTOMY; PUBOPROSTATIC LIGAMENT; SURGICAL ANATOMY; URETHRA;

HUMANS; LIGAMENTS; MALE; PELVIS; PROSTATE; PROSTATECTOMY;

EID: 0345257980     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-410X.2003.04489.x     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Zacharin RF. The suspensory mechanism of the female urethra. J Anat 1963; 97: 423-7
2. Albers DD, Faulkner KK, Cheatham WN, Elledge EF, Coalson RE. Surgica anatomy of the pubovesical (puboprostatic) ligaments. J Urol 1973; 109: 388-92
3. Myers RP. Practical pelvic anatomy pertinent to radical retropubic prostatectomy. AUA Update Series 1994; Lesson 4: XIII
4. Walsh PC, Quinlan DM, Morton RA, Steiner MS. Radical retropubic prostatectomy. Improved anastomosis and urinary continence. Urol Clin North Am 1990; 17: 679-84
5. Billroth T. Chirurgische Erfahrungen. Arch Klin Chir 1869; 10: 547-9
6. Young HH. The early diagnosis and radical cure of carcinoma of the prostate: being a study of 40 cases and a presentation of a radical operation which was carried out in four cases. Bull John Hopkins Hosp 1905; 16; 315-21
7. Myers RP. Detrusor apron, associated vascular plexus, and avascular plane: relevance to radical retropubic prostatectomy-anatomic and surgical commentary. Urology 2002; 59: 472-9
8. Steiner MS. The puboprostatic ligament and the male urethral suspensory mechanism: an anatomic study. Urology 1994; 44: 530-4
9. Santorini GD. De virorum naturalibus. In Baptista Recurti G. Observationes Anatomicae. Venice: 1724, 173-205
10. Dietrich H. Giovanni Domenico Santorini (1681-1737) Charles-Pierre Denonvilliers (1808-1872). First description of urosurgically relevant structures in the small pelvis. Eur Urol 1997; 32: 124-7
11. Beneventi FA, Noback GJ. Distribution of the blood vessels of the prostate gland and urinary bladder: application to retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 1949; 62: 663-71
12. Reiner WG, Walsh PC. An anatomical approach to the surgical management of the dorsal vein and Santorini's plexus during radical retropubic surgery. J Urol 1979; 121: 198-200
13. Myers RP. Anatomical variation of the superficial preprostatic veins with respect to radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 1991; 145: 992-3
14. Young HH. The cure of cancer of the prostate by radical perineal prostatectomy (prostato semina vesiculectomy): history, literature and statistics of Young's operation. J Urol 1945; 53: 188-256
15. McNeal JE. New morphologic findings relevant to the origin and evolution of carcinoma of the prostate and BPH. UICC Monogr Prostate Cancer 1979; 12: 24-37
16. Myers RP, Cahill DR, Devine RM, King BF. Anatomy of radical prostatectomy as defined by magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 1998; 159: 2148-58
17. Wilson PD, Dixon JS, Brown ADG, Gosling JA. Posterior pubo-urethral ligaments in normal and genuine stress incontinent women. J Urol 1983; 130: 802-5
18. Lance RS, Freidrichs PA, Kane C et al. A comparison of radical retropubic with perineal prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer within the Uniformed Services Urology Research Group. BJU Int 2001; 87: 61-5
19. Korman HJ, Leu PB, Huang RR, Goldstein NS. A centralized comparison of radical perineal and retropubic prostatectomy specimens: is there a difference according to the surgical approach? J Urol 2002; 168: 991-4
20. Salomon L, Levrel O, de la Taille A et al. Radical prostatectomy by the retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic approach: 12 years of experience in one center. Eur Urol 2002; 42: 104-11