Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2007 Dec;27(6):519-26.

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

Matthias May  1 , Manuela Dorst, Jana May, Bernd Hoschke, Dirk Fahlenkamp, Horst Vogler, Michael Siegsmund
Affiliations
  • PMID: 18217535
Review

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

Matthias May et al. Urol Nurs. 2007 Dec.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer