Differences among patients undergoing perineal or retropubic radical prostatectomy in pain and perioperative variables: a prospective study

Authors


Cássio Andreoni, Urology, Federal University of Sao Paulo, R. Jesuino Arruda, 60 apt 201 Sao Paulo 04532080, Brazil.
e-mail: cassio.andreoni@globo.com

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare pain in the first 24 h, the perioperative variables and the histopathological results among patients who had perineal (PRP) and retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), in a randomized trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with localized prostate cancer were accrued after selection using inclusion and exclusion criteria; they were prospectively randomized into four different groups: P1 (PRP with general anaesthesia), P2 (RPP with general plus epidural anaesthesia), R1 (RRP with general anaesthesia), and R2 (RRP with general plus epidural anaesthesia) and data collected for age, body mass index, prostate weight, serum prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason score and clinical stage. Pain after RP was evaluated using numerical and oral scales, and by morphine intake delivered by a patient-controlled analgesia pump. Perioperative features assessed prospectively were operating time, intraoperative bleeding, time to diet, time to ambulation, hospital stay and complications. Immediate oncological results were assessed based on histopathological evaluation, e.g. Gleason score, tumour volume, prostate volume, surgical margins and final pathological stage.

RESULTS

Between October 2004 and October 2007 80 patients were accrued (mean age 63 years, range 42–80). The groups were similar for preoperative data, but group R1 had larger prostates (P = 0.001). For postoperative pain, group R1 had a significantly greater intensity of pain, based on the visual analogue scales, and greater morphine intake during the first 24 h than the other three groups. Groups P1 and P2 had significantly less bleeding (511 and 612 mL) than groups R1 and R2 (926 and 1165 mL; P < 0.001), regardless of both prostate size and anaesthesia. Complications occurred in 27.5% and 25% (not significant) of patients after PRP and RRP, respectively. There were no differences in positive surgical margin rate and histopathological evaluation among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who had RRP with general anaesthesia had a greater intensity of pain and higher morphine intake than the other groups. Men who had PRP had significantly less bleeding and shorter hospital stay than those having RRP.

Ancillary