https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2026.14754
Perineal versus retropubic radical prostatectomy in localized prostate cancer: extended analysis of a prospective randomized cohort
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Published: 31 March 2026
Background: Although radical perineal prostatectomy is performed less frequently, it represents a minimally invasive open approach that avoids the retropubic space and extensive pelvic dissection. Its longterm oncologic and functional equivalence to standard retropubic prostatectomy has not been adequately evaluated in randomized cohorts.
Objectives: To compare perioperative outcomes, short and long-term oncologic, and patient-reported outcomes of RPP and RRP, with or without PLND.
Materials and Methods: Men with cT1-T2N0M0 prostate cancer and a predicted lymph-node invasion risk <5% were prospectively randomized to RPP, RRP, or RRP with PLND (40 patients per group). Data from 103 patients including 38 treated with RPP, 31 with RRP, and 34 with RRP with PLND were included in the analysis. Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Urinary, sexual, and satisfaction outcomes were assessed using selected items from the ‘Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite’ (EPIC) at baseline, 1 month, 1 year, and at long-term follow-up (10 years).
Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable across groups. Operative time was longest in the RRP+PLND group, while estimated blood loss was lowest with RPP (p=0.004). Early complications were mostly minor; prolonged drainage and wound infection were more frequent after RPP without long-term sequelae. At 1 and 10 years, BCRFS rates were 82% and 71.2% for RPP, 89% and 79.6% for RRP, and 87% and 79.8% for RRP+PLND (p=0.157 and p=0.679). ISUP grade >2, positive surgical margins, and pT3b stage independently predicted recurrence. Continence improved over time (p<0.001), reaching similar 10-year rates across groups (68-73%). Erectile function recovery remained limited (19-28%) and comparable. Patient satisfaction remained high.
Conclusions: The perineal approach is associated with lower blood loss but may entail more wound-related complications. At both 1 and 10 years, RPP and RRP provide comparable oncologic, functional, and patient-reported outcomes.
Downloads
1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023; 73:17-48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21763
2. Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-EANMESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2024 update. Part I: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2024; 86:148-163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.03.027
3. Walsh PC, Lepor H, Eggleston JC. Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations.Prostate. 1983; 4:473-85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.2990040506
4. Garisto J, Bertolo R, Wilson CA, Kaouk J. The evolution and resurgence of perineal prostatectomy in the robotic surgical era. World J Urol. 2020; 38:821-828. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-03004-1
5. Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, et al. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology. 2001; 8:843-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(01)01441-8
6. Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol. 2012; 61:480-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.10.044
7. Martis G, Diana M, Ombres M, et al. Retropubic versus perineal radical prostatectomy in early prostate cancer: eight-year experience. J Surg Oncol. 2007;95:513-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.20714
8. Prasad SM, Gu X, Lavelle R, et al. Comparative effectiveness of perineal versus retropubic and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2011; 185:111-5.
9. Wei JT, Dunn RL, Litwin MS, et al. Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology. 2000; 56:899-905. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00858-X
10. Wronski S. Radical perineal prostatectomy - the contemporary resurgence of a genuinely minimally invasive procedure: Procedure outline. Comparison of the advantages, disadvantages, and outcomes of different surgical techniques of treating organ-confined prostate cancer (PCa). A literature review with special focus on perineal prostatectomy. Cent European J Urol. 2012; 65:188-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2012.04.art2
11. Weldon VE, Tavel FR. Potency-sparing radical perineal prostatectomy: anatomy, surgical technique and initial results. J Urol. 1988; 140:559-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)41718-6
12. Walsh PC. Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique. J Urol. 1998 Dec; 160(6 Pt 2):2418-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)62202-X
13. Coronato EE, Harmon JD, Ginsberg PC, et al. A multi-institutional comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy, radical perineal prostatectomy, and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Robotic Surg 2009;3:175-178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-009-0158-2
14. Prasad SM, Gu X, Lavelle R, et al. Comparative effectiveness of perineal versus retropubic and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2011; 185:111-115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.08.090
15. Goetzl MA, Krebill R, Griebling TL, Thrasher JB. Predictors of positive surgical margins after radical perineal prostatectomy. Can J Urol. 2009; 16:4553-7.
16. Kim M, Yoo D, Pyo J, Cho W. Clinicopathological significances of positive surgical resection margin after radical prosta-tectomy for prostatic cancers: a meta-analysis. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022;58:1251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58091251
17. Peacock M, Quirt J, James Morris W, et al. Population-based 10-year event-free survival after radical prostatectomy for patients with prostate cancer in British Columbia. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015; 9:409-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.3288
18. Freedland SJ, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, et al. Predictors of prostate-specific antigen pro-gression among men with localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:1556-1561.
19. Stephenson AJ, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, et al. Defining biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: a proposal for a standardized definition. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24:3973-3978. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.04.0756
20. Boorjian SA, Thompson RH, Tollefson MK, et al. Long-term risk of clinical progression after biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy: the impact of pathologic features. J Urol. 2012;188:1761-1766. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.07.037
21. Moussa M, Abou Chakra M, Peyromaure M, et al. Comparison of oncological, surgical, and functional outcomes between radical retropubic and radical perineal prostatectomy: A multi-institutional study. Urologia. 2023; 90:89-99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03915603221111286
22. Walsh PC, Marschke P, Ricker D, et al. Patient reported urinary continence and sexual function after anatomic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2000; 55:58-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(99)00397-0
23. Daimon T, Miyajima A, Maeda T, et al. Does pelvic lymph node dissection improve biochemical relapse-free survival in low-risk prostate cancer patients treated by laparoscopic radical prostatectomy? J Endourol. 2012; 26:1199-1202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0589
24. Allaf ME, Partin AW, Carter HB. The importance of pelvic lymph node dissection in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Rev Urol. 2006; 8:112-119.
Ethics Approval
The original study protocol and the subsequent 10-year follow-up analysis were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the local ethics committee of the Kartal Dr. Lütfi Kırdar City Hospital.CRediT authorship contribution
Utku Can, conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, resources, writing – original draft preparation, writing – review & editing. Cemal Goktas, methodology, investigation. Alper Coskun, validation, data curation, writing – original draft preparation. Bilal Eryildirim, investigation, resources.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to ethical and privacy restrictions related to patient confidentiality.
How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.