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

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.