Quality control of radical prostatectomy: a feasibility study

• Published in: European journal of cancer (1990) Vol. 37; no. 7; pp. 884 - 891
• Main Authors: Van Poppel, H., Collette, L., Kirkali, Z., Brausi, M., Hoekstra, W., Newling, D.W., Decoster, M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Elsevier Ltd 01.05.2001; Elsevier
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Complications; Feasibility Studies; Humans; Male; Medical sciences; Neoplasm Staging - methods; Prostate cancer; Prostate-Specific Antigen - blood; Prostatectomy - standards; Prostatic Neoplasms - blood; Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery; Quality Control; Radical prostatectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgery; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases; Surgery of the genital tract and mammary gland; Radical prostatectomy; Complications; Prostate cancer; Surgery; Quality control; Adenocarcinoma; Human; Surgical section; Urinary system disease; Prostate disease; Male; Tumoral marker; Malignant tumor; Prostate specific antigen; Radical resection; Treatment; Complication; Prostatectomy; Feasibility; Male genital diseases; Prostate
• ISSN: 0959-8049; 1879-0852
• DOI: 10.1016/S0959-8049(01)00056-9

The aim of this study was to assess whether the quality of the surgical act could be an important prognostic factor for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. This study also aims to investigate whether the surgical quality can be assessed by any means. Questionnaires were collected from 23 different institutes including 232 radical prostatectomies (RPr) performed for T1T2 prostate cancer. Blood loss, duration of surgery, margin status, postoperative prostate specific antigen (PSA) and urinary incontinence were analysed and correlated with the yearly number of RPr performed. The mean values obtained for each parameter were very different in the various centres. The outcome in terms of tumour control and incontinence could not be related to a higher or lower number of RPr performed. Quality control of RPr is feasible on the basis of an analysis of a few parameters, such as surgical margins, postoperative PSA and incontinence, that might recognise urologists that perform better or poorer than a proposed average.