Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Modified Pfannenstiel approach for radical retropubic prostatectomy: a 3-year experience

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 11, pages 74–78 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

A modified Pfannenstiel approach for radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) has been described previously. We present our experience with this approach for performing a RRP over the past 3 years. Between January 2003 and July 2006, 544 consecutive RRPs by modified Pfannenstiel approach between January 2003 and July 2006 were performed. We analyzed blood loss, transfusions, use of drain, pain score, analgesia and hospital stay. Patients were followed up at 6 weeks, three monthly for a year and six monthly thereafter. All clinical and operative variables were entered into a database and analyzed. A total of 544 men underwent RRP with median follow-up of 11 (s.d.±10.5) months. The mean age was 60 (s.d.±7) years. About 83, 91 and 95% of patients had nerve sparing, bladder neck preservation and a lymph node dissection, respectively. Fifty-three patients had a concurrent inguinal hernia repair through the same incision. Mean estimated blood loss was 431(s.d.±267) ml. The pathological staging distribution was T2, 82%; T3a, 9%; and T3b, 9%. The mean pain score at days 1 and 7 were 3.7 (s.d.±2.5) and 3.3 (s.d.±3), respectively. The median hospital stay was 36 h (s.d.±24). About 5.5% have had biochemical recurrence. At 12 months 97% were continent and 46% potent. RRP using a modified Pfannenstiel approach offers safety and efficacy. It facilitates repair of associated inguinal hernia through the same incision.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Smigal C et al. Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 2006; 56: 106–130.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Walsh PC . Radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized prostatic carcinoma. Urol Clin North Am 1980; 7: 583–591.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hoznek A, Samadi DB, Salomon L, De La Taille A, Olsson LE, Abbou CC . Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: published series. Curr Urol Rep 2002; 3: 152–158.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Menon M . Robotic radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int 2003; 91: 175–176.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Manoharan M, Gomez P, Sved P, Soloway MS . Modified Pfannenstiel approach for radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2004; 64: 369–371.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT . Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 1974; 111: 58–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Soloway MS, Neulander E . Bladder-neck preservation during radical retropubic prostatectomy. Semin Urol Oncol 2000; 18: 51–56.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Manoharan M, Gomez P, Soloway MS . Concurrent radical retropubic prostatectomy and inguinal hernia repair through a modified Pfannenstiel incision. BJU Int 2004; 93: 1203–1206.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Amling CL, Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Seay TM, Slezak J, Zincke H . Long-term hazard of progression after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: continued risk of biochemical failure after 5 years. J Urol 2000; 164: 101–105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lu-Yao GL, McLerran D, Wasson J, Wennberg JE . An assessment of radical prostatectomy. Time trends, geographic variation, and outcomes. The Prostate Patient Outcomes Research Team [see comment]. JAMA 1993; 269: 2633–2636.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Millin T . Retropubic Urinary Surgery. Livingstone: London, 1947.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Marshall FF, Chan D, Partin AW, Gurganus R, Hortopan SC . Minilaparotomy radical retropubic prostatectomy: technique and results. J Urol December 1998; 160: 2440–2445.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Thrasher JB, Paulson DF . Reappraisal of radical perineal prostatectomy. Eur Urol 1992; 22: 1–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Soulie M, Vazzoler N, Seguin P, Attalah F, Pontonnier F, Plante P . Pfannenstiel short horizontal laparotomy in retropubic radical prostatectomy. Prog Urol 2000; 10: 1169–1172.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pfannenstiel HP . Uber die Vortheile des suprasymphysaren Fascienquerschnitts fur die gynakologischen Koliotomien, zugleich ein Beitrag zu der Indikationsstellung der Operationswege. Sammlung Klinischer Vortrage, Gynakologie 1900; 97: 1735–1756; Classic pages in obstetrics and gynecology. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1974; 118: 427.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lechaux JP, Gerbaux B, Lambert MP, Leroy B . The Pfannenstiel incision in colorectal surgery. Chirurgie 1997; 122: 418–423.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chaitin H . The Pfannenstiel incision for femoral hernia. Int Surg 1969; 51: 190–193.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Redman JF, Barthold JS . Experience with ileal augmentation cystoplasty using a short Pfannenstiel incision. J Urol 1996; 155: 1726–1727.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Matin SF, Gill IS . Modified Pfannenstiel incision for intact specimen extraction after retroperitoneoscopic renal surgery. Urology 2003; 61: 830–832.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Westbrook RI . Splenectomy through Pfannenstiel incision. Nebr State Med J 1971; 56: 404–405.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sved PD, Nieder AM, Manoharan M, Gomez P, Meinbach DS, Kim SS et al. Evaluation of analgesic requirements and postoperative recovery after radical retropubic prostatectomy using long-acting spinal anesthesia. Urology 2005; 65: 509–512.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kiyokawa H, Kato H . Radical retropubic prostatectomy through a minimal incision with portless endoscopy: our initial experience. Int J Urol 2006; 13: 7–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Griffiths DA . A reappraisal of the Pfannenstiel incision. Br J Urol 1976; 48: 469–474.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Manoharan M, Vyas S, Araki M, Nieder AM, Soloway MS . Concurrent radical retropubic prostatectomy and Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair through a single modified Pfannenstiel incision: a 3-year experience. BJU Int 2006; 98: 341–344.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sippo WC, Burghardt A, Gomez AC . Nerve entrapment after Pfannenstiel incision [see comment]. Am J Obstet Gynec 1987; 157: 420–421.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Salonia A, Suardi N, Crescenti A, Zanni G, Fantini GV, Gallina A et al. Pfannenstiel versus vertical laparotomy in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy with spinal anesthesia: results of a prospective, randomized trial. Eur Urol 2005; 47: 202–208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sofer M, Savoie M, Kim SS, Civantos F, Soloway MS . Biochemical and pathological predictors of the recurrence of prostatic adenocarcinoma with seminal vesicle invasion. J Urol 2003; 169: 153–156.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI . Cancer control and quality of life following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy: results at 10 years [see comment]. J Urol 1994; 152: 1831–1836.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fitzgibbons Jr RJ, Giobbie-Hurder A, Gibbs JO, Dunlop DD, Reda DJ, McCarthy Jr M et al. Watchful waiting vs repair of inguinal hernia in minimally symptomatic men: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2006; 295: 285–292.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Eden CG, Moon DA . Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: minimum 3-year follow-up of the first 100 patients in the UK. BJU Int 2006; 97: 981–984.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Financial support from Jackson Memorial Hospital Foundation and Mr Vincent Rodriguez.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA

    M Manoharan, R Ayyathurai, A M Nieder & M S Soloway

Authors
  1. M Manoharan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R Ayyathurai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A M Nieder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M S Soloway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M Manoharan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Manoharan, M., Ayyathurai, R., Nieder, A. et al. Modified Pfannenstiel approach for radical retropubic prostatectomy: a 3-year experience. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 11, 74–78 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.pcan.4500969

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.pcan.4500969

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links