Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
9 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2003-06-30
2016-04-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Our group at Methodist Urology, LLC has extensive experience in laparoscopy and in treating prostate cancer and are planning to offer LRP. We intend to maintain a registry and database to document the outcomes with LRP.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy With or Without Pelvic Drain Placement in Reducing Adverse Events After Surgery in Patients With Prostate Cancer
NCT01613651
Laparoscopic vs Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
NCT03682146
A Prospective Study to Evaluate the Impact of Maximal Urethral Length Preservation Technique During Robotic Laparoscopic Prostatectomy on the Stretched Flaccid Penile Length and Continence
NCT05735223
Robotic Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy
NCT00292019
Laparoscopic Vs. Open Prostatectomy Outcomes
NCT00695773
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Current surgical options for organ confined prostate cancer include open radical retropubic prostatectomy, open radical perineal prostatectomy, radioactive seed implantation, and radiation therapy. Open radical retropubic prostatectomy was pioneered in 1947 by Millin but what was slow to gain widespread acceptance secondary to associated morbidity.9-13 Refinement of the retropubic approach by Walsh has greatly improved outcomes, making it the most common surgical approach for radical prostatectomy.14, 15
As with other procedures, interest in the laparoscopic approach for radical prostatectomy developed in hopes of minimizing patient morbidity. In 1992, Schuessler et al performed the first LRP but the technical difficulties of the procedure at that time prohibited the widespread application of this technique.16 In 1998, Guillonneau et al introduced the Mountsouris technique in which a transperitoneal approach was used to perform the LRP.17, 18 Other groups have used this approach and even adapted this technique to perform extraperitoneal approaches to LRP.1, 2, 4, 5, 19, 20 Many centers are currently offering LRP as primary therapy for organ confined prostate cancer.
All curative surgical therapies for prostate cancer, whether performed in an open or laparoscopic manner, can result in impotence and/or incontinence. Incontinence can be treated with simple measures, such as muscle strengthening exercises, or if more bothersome, can be treated with surgical therapy. Impotence can be treated with medications or, if needed, surgery.
The relative risk of having positive surgical margins in patients undergoing open radical retropubic prostatectomy compared to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is not known. Preliminary publications regarding laparoscopic radical prostatectomy report rates of positive surgical margins (13-25%) that are similar to open radical prostatectomy (11-46%).2, 5, 6, 19, 21-28 However, long-term follow-up is not available for patients undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, so the impact of positive margins on long-term survival is not known.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
COHORT
PROSPECTIVE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
cohort
Registry and Database
observation
registry and database for surgery outcomes
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
observation
registry and database for surgery outcomes
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Ability to give informed consent
* Biopsy proven diagnosis of prostate cancer without local extension or metastatic disease (Clinical T2 or less in the TNM classification)
Exclusion Criteria
* Bleeding diathesis or anticoagulation
* Medical disease (such as cardiovascular or pulmonary diseases) precluding general anesthesia/laparoscopy
* Transplanted kidney in the pelvis
* Radiation therapy to pelvis
* Morbid obesity
18 Years
MALE
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Indiana Kidney Stone Institute
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Methodist Urology
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Larry Munch, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Methodist Urology, LLC
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Methodist Hospital
Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
03-040
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.