Radical retropubic and perineal prostatectomy for clinically localised XXXX in renal transplant recipients.

@entity1 @entity263 @entity2737 @entity6391 @entity166
OBJECTIVE: To analyse the functional and oncological outcome of consecutive renal-transplant recipients (RTRs) with clinically localised @entity263 who underwent radical retropubic (RRP) or perineal (RPP) prostatectomy. @entity1 AND METHODS: Between January 2000 and July 2011 16 @entity1 underwent RRP (group 1) and seven RPP (group 2). In all, 200 consecutive non-RTRs served as the control group, of whom 100 each underwent RRP and RPP, respectively. The mean (range) interval between renal transplantation and @entity6391 was 95 (24-206) months, the PSA at the time of diagnosis was 4.5 (3.0-17.5) ng/mL, and the mean @entity1 age was 64 (59-67) years. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 39 (RRP) and 48  months (RPP). There was no deterioration in graft function. In group 1, 13 and three @entity1 had pT2a-cpN0 and pT3a-bpN0 @entity263 , respectively, with a Gleason score of 6, 7 and 8 in 11, three and one @entity1 , respectively. In group 2, three and four @entity1 had pT2a-c and pT3a-b disease, respectively, with a Gleason score of 6 and 7 in two and five, respectively. In both groups one @entity1 had a positive surgical margin and was followed expectantly, and all @entity1 have no evidence of disease. @entity2737 developed more often in the RPP group (29% vs. 7%), but there were no Clavien grade III-V complications. All @entity1 achieved good continence, and two need one pad/day. CONCLUSIONS: RRP and RPP are suitable surgical treatments for @entity263 in RTRs. RRP might be preferable, as it has the advantage of simultaneous pelvic lymphadenectomy and a lower risk of @entity166 .
