Journal of Men's Health,2023,19(7):86-92 DOI:10.22514/jomh.2023.060
Original Research

Effect of modified extraperitoneal laparoscopic total intrafascial radical prostatectomy on clinical efficacy for prostate cancer patients

Dan Yuan1, Kang Li1,*,, Yu Wang1, Long Huang1, Mingsong Wang1, Kang Jia1

1Department of Urology, 363 Hospital, 610041 Chengdu, Sichuan, China

*Corresponding Author(s):likang3030601@163.com (Kang Li)

History Submitted: 07 March 2023 | Accepted: 10 May 2023 | Published: 30 July 2023
Copyright:  ©2023  The Author(s). Published by MRE Press.
This is an open access article under the CC BY 4.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Collapse table of contents

Abstract

The effective surgical treatments of localized prostate cancer patients were explored. 90 prostate cancer patients admitted to our hospital were selected as study subjects. They were divided into research (treated by modified extraperitoneal total intrafascial laparoscopic radical prostatectomy) and control (treated by extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy) groups by random number table method, having 45 cases each. The operation time, bleeding volume, drainage time, hospitalization time, vascular endothelial stimulation index, urinary control function, erectile function, complications, and recurrence were monitored and compared. No significant difference was found between the two groups in clinical operation related indexes. On 3rd and 7th days after operation, VEGF (Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor) and IGF-I (Insulin-like Growth Factor 1) in research group were lower than those in control (p < 0.005). The urine control rate and erectile function normal rate in research group were higher than those in control (p < 0.005). Modified extraperitoneal laparoscopic total intrafascial radical prostatectomy reduced the degrees of trauma and irritation in the operation of prostate cancer patients. Moreover, during the observation period, it improved the postoperative urinary control and erectile function of patients and reduced the complications. Thus, this method has the worth of clinical promotion and application.

Keywords:Improvement;Extraperitoneal laparoscopy;Total intrafascial radical prostatectomy;Prostate cancer;Clinical efficacy
PDF(365.76 kB)|EndNote (RIS)|BibTeX|RefMan|RefWorks

Cite this article

Dan Yuan, Kang Li, Yu Wang, Long Huang, Mingsong Wang, Kang Jia. Effect of modified extraperitoneal laparoscopic total intrafascial radical prostatectomy on clinical efficacy for prostate cancer patients.Journal of Men's Health,2023,19(7):86-92 DOI:10.22514/jomh.2023.060

1. Introduction

Clinical data [1, 2] show that prostate cancer incidence is the highest among malignant tumors of male urinary system. Radical prostatectomy is an effective therapeutic method for treating localized prostate cancer. This method prolongs patients’ survival and has advantages of reducing postoperative intraperitoneal complications and interferences [3]. However, patients may face problems including urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after the operation. These problems reduce patients’ life quality and affect operation outcomes. Clinical research [4, 5] has revealed that various ways of tissues excision and anatomy have different effects on patients for recovering from erectile dysfunction and postoperative urinary incontinence. This finding has been proved in clinical trials. Studies [6, 7, 8] have found that modified total intrafascial radical prostatectomy affects recovery from erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence because of the anatomical reconstruction of anterior urethral wall. There are few clinical studies on this method and paper herein conducts clinical analysis regarding this topic.

2. Material and methods

2.1 Clinical materials

Ninety prostate cancer patients admitted to our hospital were selected as the study subjects. They were divided into research and control groups by the random number table method having 45 cases each. All radical prostatectomies were performed by one surgeon who was the deputy chief physician of Urology Department and had conducted more than 100 radical prostatectomies before this study. Table 1 depicts the clinical information of two groups having no significant differences. The study was approved by hospital ethics committee.

Table 1.Comparison of clinical information for two groups.
IndicatorsResearch groupControl groupt/χ2 valuep value
(n = 45)(n = 45)
Age62.33 ± 4.2662.40 ± 4.190.080.94
BMI (kg/m2)22.64 ± 2.0522.67 ± 1.940.070.94
Prostate Volume39.33 ± 3.2539.29 ± 3.550.060.96
Education Background (n, %)
Beyond high school990.060.97
High school2524
Below high school1112
Bladder outlet obstruction (n, %)
Yes35360.070.80
No109
Clinical Stages (n, %)
T1c24250.040.83
T22120
Smoking (n, %)
Yes28300.190.66
No1715
Drinking (n, %)
Yes20210.040.83
No2524
GS (n, %)
≤7 scores21220.040.83
≥8 scores2423
Marital Status (n, %)
Married35360.610.74
Single53
Divorced56
Domicile Place (n, %)
Non-local120.340.56
Native4443
BMI: Body Mass Index; GS: Gleason score.

2.2 Therapy

2.2.1 Control group

Patients in control group underwent extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Neurovascular bundles in fascia were reserved during the operation performed under general anesthesia. Patients were supine on sickbed elevated 15 degrees high. The posture was kept like raised hips, slightly apart legs, and feet higher than heads. After disinfection, the doctor indwelt catheter (F18) and prepared laparoscopic channel. The extra-peritoneal pneumoperitoneum pressure was maintained as 13 mmHg. Doctor incised the skin, dissected subcutaneous tissue and pubis and moved peritoneum with fingers to locate pubic bladder, puboprostatic ligament and bilateral pelvic fascia. The adipose tissues of anterior prostate were removed. The puboprostatic ligaments were separated from pelvic fascia and sutured with the prostate dorsal vein complex. With vesical neck remaining open, the vesical neck and ductus deferens were severed, and seminal vesicles were dissociated. The posterior layer of Denonvillier’s fascia was longitudinally opened. The prostate fascia and intrapelvic fascia of prostate were freed to the prostate tip. Prostatic ligament and vascular pedicle were severed with Hem-o-lok clamp. The bilateral neurovascular bundles were retained to maximum extent. Ventral, dorsal, and bilateral tracts of prostate were dissociated. The prostate dorsal vein complex was dissociated and sutured through prostate surface, and urethra was completely dissociated with sufficient remaining length. Urethra near the prostate tip was sharply severed with scissors. The prostate tissue and seminal vesicles were completely removed. Confirming that rectum was intact, doctor anastomosed the urethra and bladder and replaced F15 with two-way Foley catheter (F20). Doctor injected 200 mL normal saline through catheter after the anastomosis and verified about no urine or anastomotic leakage. Doctor then injected 15 mL water through the bags. Finally, the indwelt drainage tube was observed in pelvic cavity to prevent infection.

2.2.2 Research group

Modified extraperitoneal total intrafascial laparoscopic radical prostatectomy was employed to treat patients in research group. They were under local anesthesia regarding pubic bladder, puboprostatic ligament and bilateral pelvic fascia. The puboprostatic ligaments were not incised and prostate dorsal vein complex was not sutured. The ductus deferens and seminal vesicles were severed and dissociated. The vesical neck was severed with vesical neck remaining open. Denonvillier’s fascia was fully reserved. Moreover, the interfascial tissues and bilateral prostate fascia were bluntly separated. The prostate fascia was incised to the top at 9 o’clock and 3 o’clock positions, and bilateral neurovascular bundles were reserved. Absorbable sutures were employed for suture and hemostasis. The dorsal and bilateral tracts of prostate were dissociated. The prostate dorsal vein complex was dissociated from the top along prostate ventral surface. The urethra near prostate tip was sharply severed with scissors, and prostate tissue and seminal vesicles were removed. Doctor confirmed the rectum being intact and no anastomotic leakage on bladder neck and urethra. Doctor then sutured the prostate dorsal vein complex, pubic bladder, puboprostatic ligament, bilateral pelvic fascia and antetheca of bladder neck with 3-0 barbed line. The front lift system was thus anatomically reconstructed. The indwelt drainage tube in pelvic cavity was observed after the operation to prevent infection.

2.3 Indicators

The operation, drainage, and hospitalization times, bleeding volume, vascular endothelial stimulation index, urinary continence, erectile function, complications, and recurrence were monitored and compared.

(1) Urinary continence: Doctor observed whether patients would use urinal pad. Patients with normal urinary control function did not use urinal pad.

(2) Erectile function: International Index of Erectile Function-5 was adopted. Patient with 21 out of 25 had normal erectile function.

(3) Vascular endothelial stimulation index: Serum samples from patients were taken. VEGF and IGF-I were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Test kit was procured from Huarui Biotechnology Co., LTD. Test procedures were accomplished according to manufacturer’s instructions.

(4) Prostate symptom: International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was used having 35 points in total. More serious prostate symptoms were linked with higher score.

(5) Complications

Bladder irritation: Main indications were frequent urination, urgent urination and odynuria.

Normal person urinates 4~6 times in the day and 0~2 times at night on average. Urination exceeding 8 times is categorized as frequent urination. Urgent urination refers to the strong need to urinate. Odynuria is the burning or stabbing pain in bladder area and urethral orifice during urination.

2.4 Statistics

The data were statistically processed by SPSS 23.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA), and enumeration data were presented as n and %. χ2 test was conducted for comparing the two groups. Metering data were represented as x̄ ± s. t-test was used for the comparison. p < 0.05 indicated significant difference.

3. Results

3.1 Comparison of clinical indexes

There were no significant differences in the clinical indexes of two groups. Details are given in Table 2.

Table 2.Comparison of clinical indexes (x̄ ± s).
GroupNOperation time (min)Intraoperative blood loss (mL)Postoperative drainage time (d)Postoperative preserved time of indwelling catheter (d)Length of stay (d)
Research group4599.35 ± 8.3490.33 ± 9.616.82 ± 0.6518.33 ± 1.228.16 ± 0.64
Control group4599.64 ± 7.9689.67 ± 9.066.78 ± 0.6018.44 ± 1.348.18 ± 0.61
t value—0.170.340.300.410.15
p value—0.870.740.760.680.88

3.2 Comparison of IEF-5 and IPSS

There was no significant difference before the treatment in scores of IEF-5 (International Index of Erectile Function) and IPSS (International Prostate Symptom Score) for two groups. After the treatment, IEF-5 scores were higher and IPSS were lower for the patients in research group than those in control. The difference was significant (p < 0.05). Details are found in Table 3.

Table 3.Comparison of IEF-5 and IPSS scores (x̄ ± s).
GroupNIEF-5 scoresIPSS scores
Before operationAfter operationBefore operationAfter operation
Research group4517.85 ± 1.6913.52 ± 1.0524.35 ± 2.164.35 ± 0.51
Control group4517.91 ± 1.7111.25 ± 1.4124.41 ± 2.216.38 ± 0.64
t value—0.178.660.1316.64
p value—0.87< 0.0010.90< 0.001
IPSS: International Prostate Symptom Score; IEF-5: International Index of Erectile Function.

3.3 Comparison of tumor markers

There was no significant difference in PSA (Prostate-specific Antigen) and CEA (Carcinoma Embryonic Antigen) for the two groups before treatment. After treatment, PSA and CEA of patients in research group were higher than those in control. The difference was significant (p < 0.05). Details are provided in Table 4.

Table 4.Comparison of tumor markers (x̄ ± s).
GroupNPSA (μg/L)CEA (μg/L)
Before operationAfter operationBefore operationAfter operation
Research group4550.35 ± 5.1632.06 ± 3.167.23 ± 0.654.25 ± 0.56
Control group4550.42 ± 5.0940.61 ± 4.017.21 ± 0.595.56 ± 0.61
t value—0.0611.230.1510.61
p value—0.95< 0.0010.88< 0.001
PSA: Prostate-specific Antigen; CEA: Carcinoma Embryonic Antigen.

3.4 Vascular endothelial stimulation index

There was no significant difference in VEGF and IGF-I for the two groups before operation. Three and seven days after operation, VEGF and IGF-I of research group were lower than those in control, and differences were significant (p < 0.05). Details are provided in Table 5.

Table 5.Vascular endothelial stimulation indexes (x̄ ± s).
GroupNVEGF (ng/mL)IGF-I (ng/mL)
Before operation3 days after operation7 days after operationBefore operation3 days after operation7 days after operation
Research group45169.25 ± 14.35185.35 ± 13.25109.65 ± 9.31201.35 ± 15.36211.35 ± 16.35136.35 ± 13.65
Control group45169.56 ± 13.24226.35 ± 19.55136.53 ± 9.98202.16 ± 16.35226.35 ± 14.95164.35 ± 16.35
t value—0.1111.6513.210.244.548.82
p value—0.92< 0.001< 0.0010.81< 0.001< 0.001
VEGF: vascular endothelial growth factor; IGF-I: insulin-like growth factor I.

3.5 Comparison of urinary continence index

Patients in research group with normal urinary function were more than in control after one and three months of operation, and difference was significant (p < 0.05). Details are provided in Table 6.

Table 6.Comparison of urinary continence indexes (n, %).
GroupN1 month after operation3 months after operation6 months after operation
Research group4533, 73.3340, 88.8945, 100.00
Control group4523, 51.1132, 71.1144, 97.78
χ2 value—4.734.441.01
p value—0.030.040.31

3.6 Comparison of erectile function indexes

Patients in research group with normal erectile function were more than in control after one and three months of operation, and difference was significant (p < 0.05). More details are provided in Table 7.

Table 7.Comparison of erectile function indexes (n, %).
GroupN1 month after operation3 months after operation6 months after operation
Research group4511, 24.4423, 51.1136, 80.00
Control group454, 8.8912, 26.6731, 68.89
χ2—3.925.661.46
p value—0.050.020.23

3.7 Comparison of incidence of complications

The incidence of complications in research group was 4.44%, lower than 17.78% of control. The difference was significant (p < 0.05). Details are provided in Table 8.

Table 8.Comparison of incidence of complications (n, %).
GroupNBladder irritationAnastomotic fistulaUreteral injuryUrinary fistulaUrinary incontinenceTotal
Research group451, 2.221, 2.220, 0.000, 0.000, 0.002, 4.44
Control group452, 4.442, 4.442, 4.441, 2.221, 2.228, 17.78
χ2——4.05
p value——0.04

4. Discussion

Studies [9, 10] have found that it is difficult to avoid urinary complications such as bladder irritation, erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence after the operation of localized prostate cancer patients, however, the postoperative patients’ survival can be prolonged by improving the clinical cure rates. This is one of the methods to improve tumor control outcomes while ensuring the patients normal erectile function and urinary continence. Clinical cases [11, 12, 13] have shown that extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is often used on localized prostate cancer patients, and intrafascial laparoscopic radical prostatectomy preserves most periprostatic structures [14]. In this study, the modified total intrafascial radical prostatectomy was more effective in research group patients for recovering erectile dysfunction and urinal incontinence after operation.

The results show that modified total intrafascial radical prostatectomy has similar clinical effects as those by the conventional interfascial neurovascular bundles preservation surgery. Clinical studies have found that this method does not increase the risk of cancer cells on incisal margins linked to tumor and lesion control because of the complete removal of seminal vesicle and prostate gland [15, 16, 17]. Data after one to three months of operation exhibit that patients in research group have higher recovery rates from erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence compared to the control. This proves that modified extraperitoneal total intrafascial laparoscopic radical prostatectomy has better effects and advantages in maintaining urodynamics [13, 18]. There are several reasons [19, 20, 21, 22]: firstly, bilateral pelvic fascia was not opened during the operation, and doctor bluntly separated the bilateral prostate envelop only from fascia tissues, so that the bottom fascia was undamaged and bilateral neurovascular bundles were reserved, minimizing the damage to pelvic muscles such as levator ani, and controlled the damage to erectile function and urinary continence. Secondly, the internal urethral sphincter and bladder neck were preserved to maximum extent because of complete removal of tumor cells, which provided environment for the recovery from erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence. Thirdly, the prostate top was dissociated from inner part of fascia which reduced damage to urethral sphincter and accelerated the patients’ recovery [23]. Fourthly, Denonvillier’s fascia was completely preserved which benefited from the integrity of supporting structure behind urethra, and created favorable conditions for urodynamics recovery. Fifthly, the urethra length was sufficient and anatomic reconstruction of front lift system preserved the surrounding structures, which was the basic condition for recovery. Sixthly, the prostate dorsal vein complex was not sutured, and puboprostatic ligament or pubic bladder was retained during the intrafascial dissociation, so that the front lift system was statically maintained [24]. Thus, the results had proved that modified extraperitoneal total intrafascial laparoscopic radical prostatectomy had better effects than conventional interfascial neurovascular bundle preservation surgery.

Patients have different kinds of postoperative effects as the operation stimulates vascular endothelium [25, 26]. VEGF is the key index to reflect damage which increases with more vascular endothelial stimulation. IGF-I is expressed and secreted in interstitial cells and enter blood after vascular endothelial injury. More IGF-I indicates more serious vascular endothelial stimulation [27]. The results showed that upon comparing the data of serum VEGF after 3 and 7 days of operation, IGF-I levels were increased at the beginning and then decreased. The control group levels were higher than those of research group which proved that stimulation of modified extraperitoneal laparoscopic total intrafascial radical prostatectomy was more serious. Reason might be the superficial sutures with absorbable lines when performing modified extraperitoneal laparoscopic total intrafascial radical prostatectomy, so that thermal damage by electrocoagulation or ultrasonic knife to peripheral structures and blood vessels was reduced. At the same time, blunt dissection method was used to separate fascia from prostate envelop for reducing the damage to neurovascular bundles. Thus, intrafascial resection reduced the traumatic stimulation caused by the operation [28, 29, 30].

5. Conclusions

In summary, the modified extraperitoneal laparoscopic total intrafascial radical prostatectomy reduces the degree of traumatic stimulation on prostate cancer patients during operation, improves postoperative urinary continence and erectile function, and reduces the incidence of complications, which is thus worthy of clinical promotion and application. However, the selected cases in this study have limitations, such as single source of patients, insufficient sample size, and short follow-up time. In future, the clinical effectiveness of modified extraperitoneal laparoscopic total intrafascial radical prostatectomy can be expanded, and its long-term efficacy be further confirmed.

Availability of data and materials

The authors declare that all data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and any raw data can be obtained from corresponding author upon request.

Author contributions

DY and KL—designed the study and performed; DY, KL, YW, LH, MSW and KJ—supervised data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, and preparation of manuscript for publication, and reviewed the manuscript draft. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was obtained from Ethics Committee of 363 Hospital (Approval No. 2020002). Written informed consent was obtained from legally authorized representative for anonymized patient information to be published in this article.

Acknowledgment

Not applicable.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Lantz A, Bock D, Akre O, Angenete E, Bjartell A, Carlsson S, et al. Functional and oncological outcomes after open versus robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer: 8-year follow-up. European Urology. 2021; 80: 650–660.

[Google Scholar]

Panebianco V, Villeirs G, Weinreb JC, Turkbey BI, Margolis DJ, Richenberg J, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging for local recurrence reporting (PI-RR): international consensus-based guidelines on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer recurrence after radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy. European Urology Oncology. 2021; 4: 868–876.

[Google Scholar]

Baumann FT, Reimer N, Gockeln T, Reike A, Hallek M, Ricci C, et al. Supervised pelvic floor muscle exercise is more effective than unsupervised pelvic floor muscle exercise at improving urinary incontinence in prostate cancer patients following radical prostatectomy—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2022; 44: 5374–5385.

[Google Scholar]

Lestingi JFP, Guglielmetti GB, Trinh Q, Coelho RF, Pontes J, Bastos DA, et al. Extended versus limited pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: early oncological outcomes from a randomized phase 3 trial. European Urology. 2021; 79: 595–604.

[Google Scholar]

Tilki D, Chen M, Wu J, Huland H, Graefen M, Wiegel T, et al. Adjuvant versus early salvage radiation therapy for men at high risk for recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer and the risk of death. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2021; 39: 2284–2293.

[Google Scholar]

Avda Y, Modai J, Shpunt I, Dinerman M, Shilo Y, Croock R, et al. Surgical outcomes in high-risk prostate cancer and salvage radical prostatectomy. The Israel Medical Association Journal. 2021; 23: 777–782.

[Google Scholar]

Barlow SK, Oyekunle T, Janes JL, De Hoedt AM, Aronson WJ, Kane CJ, et al. Prostate weight and prostate cancer outcomes after radical prostatectomy: results from the SEARCH cohort study. The Prostate. 2022; 82: 366–372.

[Google Scholar]

Gandaglia G, Mazzone E, Stabile A, Pellegrino A, Cucchiara V, Barletta F, et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen radioguided surgery to detect nodal metastases in primary prostate cancer patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection: results of a planned interim analysis of a prospective phase 2 study. European Urology. 2022; 82: 411–418.

[Google Scholar]

Classon J, Zamboni M, Engblom C, Alkass K, Mantovani G, Pou C, et al. Prostate cancer disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy is associated with HLA type and local cytomegalovirus immunity. Molecular Oncology. 2022; 16: 3452–3464.

[Google Scholar]

Meissner VH, Peter C, Ankerst DP, Schiele S, Gschwend JE, Herkommer K, et al. Prostate cancer‐related anxiety among long-term survivors after radical prostatectomy: a longitudinal study. Cancer Medicine. 2023; 12: 4842–4851.

[Google Scholar]

Chierigo F, Wenzel M, Würnschimmel C, Flammia RS, Horlemann B, Tian Z, et al. Survival after radical prostatectomy versus radiation therapy in high-risk and very high-risk prostate cancer. Journal of Urology. 2022; 207: 375–384.

[Google Scholar]

Martini A, Touzani A, Beauval JB, Ruffion A, Olivier J, Gasmi A, et al. Heterogeneity of contemporary grade group 4 prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. World Journal of Urology. 2022; 40: 2931–2937.

[Google Scholar]

Wen W, Luckenbaugh AN, Bayley CE, Penson DF, Shu X. Racial disparities in mortality for patients with prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2021; 127: 1517–1528.

[Google Scholar]

Klingenberg S, Fredsøe J, Sørensen KD, Ulhøi BP, Borre M, Jochumsen MR, et al. Recurrence rate after radical prostatectomy following primary staging of high-risk prostate cancer with (68) Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Acta Oncologica. 2022; 61: 1289–1294.

[Google Scholar]

Tappero S, Dell’Oglio P, Longoni M, Buratto C, Palagonia E, Scilipoti P, et al. Challenging cases in high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. World Journal of Urology. 2022; 40: 1993–1999.

[Google Scholar]

van Dijk-de Haan MC, Boellaard TN, Tissier R, Heijmink SWTPJ, van Leeuwen PJ, van der Poel HG, et al. Value of different magnetic resonance imaging-based measurements of anatomical structures on preoperative prostate imaging in predicting urinary continence after radical prostatectomy in men with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Urology Focus. 2022; 8: 1211–1225.

[Google Scholar]

Würnschimmel C, Wenzel M, Chierigo F, Flammia RS, Tian Z, Saad F, et al. External beam radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy are associated with better survival in Asian prostate cancer patients. International Journal of Urology. 2022; 29: 17–24.

[Google Scholar]

Goldenthal SB, Reimers MA, Singhal U, Farha M, Mehra R, Piert M, et al. Prostate cancer with peritoneal carcinomatosis: a robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy-based case series. Urology. 2022; 167: 171–178.

[Google Scholar]

So J, Grageda M, Choy B, Paner G. Prostate cancer: a presentation of clinicopathologic prognosticators among Filipino and American men at radical prostatectomy. Asian Journal of Andrology. 2021; 23: 516.

[Google Scholar]

Hasegawa M, Yamada K, Shigeta K, Yuzuriha S, Kawakami M, Kim H, et al. How long should urologists observe patients with prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy? Weibull analysis. International Journal of Urology. 2022; 29: 304–308.

[Google Scholar]

Park J, Rho MJ, Moon HW, Park YH, Kim C, Jeon SS, et al. Prostate cancer trajectory-map: clinical decision support system for prognosis management of radical prostatectomy. Prostate International. 2021; 9: 25–30.

[Google Scholar]

van Riel LAMJG, Geboers B, Kabaktepe E, Blazevski A, Reesink DJ, Stijns P, et al. Outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy after initial irreversible electroporation treatment for recurrent prostate cancer. BJU International. 2022; 130: 611–618.

[Google Scholar]

Li C, Zhang M, Wang J, Zhang X. Author correction: the 45-month therapy outcomes of permanent seed implantation and radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer patients. Investigational New Drugs. 2022; 40: 1164–1164.

[Google Scholar]

Tahra A, Sen UT, Sobay R, İnkaya A, Kucuk EV, Boylu U. Comparison of Retzius-sparing versus standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Actas UrolóGicas EspañOlas. 2022; 46: 293–300.

[Google Scholar]

Wang F, Fan Y, Yin X, Qi L, Ma G, Yuan Q. Prognostic comparison between radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients at different stages and ages. Aging. 2021; 13: 16773–16785.

[Google Scholar]

Zeng J, Zhou S, Luan W, Du Y, Wu J. Symptom trajectories and influencing factors of prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy in Chinese patients. Annals of Palliative Medicine. 2021; 10: 7747–7758.

[Google Scholar]

Pasalic D, Barocas DA, Wallis CJD, Huang L, Zhao Z, Koyama T, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after external beam radiotherapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost vs. radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: five-year results from a prospective comparative effectiveness study. Journal of Urology. 2023; 209: 450–450.

[Google Scholar]

Callejas MF, Klein EA, Truong M, Thomas L, McKenney JK, Ghai S. Detection of clinically significant index prostate cancer using micro-ultrasound: correlation with radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2022; 169: 150–155.

[Google Scholar]

Oake JD, Shiff B, Harasemiw O, Tangri N, Ferguson TW, Bhindi B, et al. The comparative outcomes of radical prostatectomy versus radiotherapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer: a longitudinal, population-based analysis. Journal of Urology. 2022; 208: 846–854.

[Google Scholar]

Preisser F, Würnschimmel C, Pose RM, Heinze A, Steuber T, Michl U, et al. Concordance of biopsy and pathologic ISUP grading in salvage radical prostatectomy patients for recurrent prostate cancer. The Prostate. 2022; 82: 254–259.

[Google Scholar]