Inguinal Hernia After Radical Perineal Prostatectomy: Comparison with the Retropubic Approach

ObjectivesTo clarify the characteristics of inguinal hernia (IH) after radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) compared with that after radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP).MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 285 and 311 men who underwent RPP and RRP, respectively, for clinically localized prostate cancer between August 2000 and June 2006, using medical records and a telephone survey.ResultsThe incidence of postoperative IH after RPP was 1.8% (5 of 285) with a median follow-up time of 43 months; that after RRP was 10.3% (32 of 311) with a median follow-up of 36 months (P <0.0001). The cumulative IH-free rate was significantly higher after RPP than after RRP (P <0.0001, log-rank test). Three of the five RPP patients (60%) developed IH more than 24 months after surgery, whereas 25 of 32 (78%) of the RRP group did so within 24 months (P = 0.0742). The incidence rate of post-RPP IH did not differ between the standard (4 of 194 = 2.1%) and modified (1 of 91 = 1.1%) RPP procedures, where the endopelvic fascia was left intact and opened, respectively (P = 0.5638).ConclusionsThe incidence of IH after RPP appears to be sporadic and about the same as that (2.0–2.4%) reported previously in men with prostate cancer treated nonsurgically. Although some kinds of procedures during RRP are speculated to affect the internal inguinal ring, prostatectomy with or without opening of the endopelvic fascia seems to be less implicated in the development of IH after RRP because it was not a significant variable in IH development after different techniques had been used in RPP.