Limits...
Does size matter? The significance of prostate size on pathologic and functional outcomes in patients undergoing robotic prostatectomy.

Olsson CA, Lavery HJ, Sebrow D, Akhavan A, Levinson AW, Brajtbord JS, Carlucci J, Muntner P, Samadi DB - Arab J Urol (2011)

Bottom Line: Data were available from 716 consecutive patients before, during and after undergoing RALP at one institution.Perioperative data and the histopathological and functional outcomes were compared across these groups by both univariable and multivariable-adjusted analyses.However, after multivariable adjustment, only Gleason score and pathological stage were significantly associated with the incidence of positive margins (P < 0.05); prostate weight was not significantly associated.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Urology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.

ABSTRACT

Background: We examined the effect of prostate weight on perioperative data, and the pathological and functional outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP).

Patients and methods: Data were available from 716 consecutive patients before, during and after undergoing RALP at one institution. Prostate size was arbitrarily stratified by recorded prostate weight into <50, 50-80 and >80 g, corresponding to small, moderate and large glands, respectively. Perioperative data and the histopathological and functional outcomes were compared across these groups by both univariable and multivariable-adjusted analyses.

Results: Increased prostate size was associated with increased age, preoperative prostate-specific antigen levels, body mass index, operative duration, blood loss, lower biopsy and pathological Gleason scores, and lower pathological staging (P < 0.05). The incidence of extensive positive surgical margins was 14.8%, 9.7%, and 5.3% in small, moderate and large prostates, respectively (P < 0.001). However, after multivariable adjustment, only Gleason score and pathological stage were significantly associated with the incidence of positive margins (P < 0.05); prostate weight was not significantly associated. Overall, 78% and 92% of patients were potent and continent at 12 months, respectively, which was not affected by prostate size.

Conclusion: Patients with larger prostates had favourable pathological outcomes after RALP. When controlling for pathological stage, prostate size was not associated with margin positivity. Functionally, neither continence nor potency at 12 months was affected by prostate size.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Distribution of prostate weight among 716 patients undergoing RALP (prostate weight distribution extends to a maximum of 200 g).
© Copyright Policy - CC BY-NC-ND
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4150561&req=5

f0005: Distribution of prostate weight among 716 patients undergoing RALP (prostate weight distribution extends to a maximum of 200 g).

Mentions: Among the 716 patients undergoing RALP, 400 (56%) had a prostate weight of <50 g, 259 (36%) of 50–80 g, and 57 (8%) had glands of >80 g (Fig. 1). The mean (range) prostate weight was 50.1 (22–200) g. All clinical and pathological variables examined except LOS were associated with prostate weight (Table 1). Specifically, greater age, longer OR time and a higher EBL were significantly associated with larger prostates. Pathological stage was lower in patients with larger prostates, and there were significantly higher proportions of patients with lower biopsy and histopathological Gleason sums in those with larger prostates.


Does size matter? The significance of prostate size on pathologic and functional outcomes in patients undergoing robotic prostatectomy.

Olsson CA, Lavery HJ, Sebrow D, Akhavan A, Levinson AW, Brajtbord JS, Carlucci J, Muntner P, Samadi DB - Arab J Urol (2011)

Distribution of prostate weight among 716 patients undergoing RALP (prostate weight distribution extends to a maximum of 200 g).
© Copyright Policy - CC BY-NC-ND
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4150561&req=5

f0005: Distribution of prostate weight among 716 patients undergoing RALP (prostate weight distribution extends to a maximum of 200 g).
Mentions: Among the 716 patients undergoing RALP, 400 (56%) had a prostate weight of <50 g, 259 (36%) of 50–80 g, and 57 (8%) had glands of >80 g (Fig. 1). The mean (range) prostate weight was 50.1 (22–200) g. All clinical and pathological variables examined except LOS were associated with prostate weight (Table 1). Specifically, greater age, longer OR time and a higher EBL were significantly associated with larger prostates. Pathological stage was lower in patients with larger prostates, and there were significantly higher proportions of patients with lower biopsy and histopathological Gleason sums in those with larger prostates.

Bottom Line: Data were available from 716 consecutive patients before, during and after undergoing RALP at one institution.Perioperative data and the histopathological and functional outcomes were compared across these groups by both univariable and multivariable-adjusted analyses.However, after multivariable adjustment, only Gleason score and pathological stage were significantly associated with the incidence of positive margins (P < 0.05); prostate weight was not significantly associated.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Urology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.

ABSTRACT

Background: We examined the effect of prostate weight on perioperative data, and the pathological and functional outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP).

Patients and methods: Data were available from 716 consecutive patients before, during and after undergoing RALP at one institution. Prostate size was arbitrarily stratified by recorded prostate weight into <50, 50-80 and >80 g, corresponding to small, moderate and large glands, respectively. Perioperative data and the histopathological and functional outcomes were compared across these groups by both univariable and multivariable-adjusted analyses.

Results: Increased prostate size was associated with increased age, preoperative prostate-specific antigen levels, body mass index, operative duration, blood loss, lower biopsy and pathological Gleason scores, and lower pathological staging (P < 0.05). The incidence of extensive positive surgical margins was 14.8%, 9.7%, and 5.3% in small, moderate and large prostates, respectively (P < 0.001). However, after multivariable adjustment, only Gleason score and pathological stage were significantly associated with the incidence of positive margins (P < 0.05); prostate weight was not significantly associated. Overall, 78% and 92% of patients were potent and continent at 12 months, respectively, which was not affected by prostate size.

Conclusion: Patients with larger prostates had favourable pathological outcomes after RALP. When controlling for pathological stage, prostate size was not associated with margin positivity. Functionally, neither continence nor potency at 12 months was affected by prostate size.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus