title: Can Subepididymal Orchiectomy Re-emerge as the Treatment of Choice in Patients with Advanced Prostatic Carcinoma?
abstract: To study the effectiveness of bilateral subepididymal orchiectomy compared to bilateral simple and subcapsular orchiectomy in terms of androgen ablation, control of disease progression and esthetic superiority. 114 patients of advanced prostatic carcinoma (T3, T4, M1) were randomized to 3 groups- Group A: bilateral simple orchiectomy (38 patients), Group B: bilateral subcapsular orchiectomy (38 patients), & Group C: bilateral subepididymal orchiectomy (38 patients). Serum PSA and serum testosterone values were checked pre-operatively and at 3 months follow-up. Patients' esthetic satisfaction was scored on a quality of life scale of 1-5. In Groups A, B and C, at 3 months the post-operative mean serum testosterone values were 34.7, 38.1 and 36.7 ng/dl (p = 0.0524); and mean serum PSA values were 4.2, 3.9 and 3.4 ng/ml (p = 0.09) respectively, the differences not being statistically significant. On esthetic satisfaction scale the average scores were 1.8, 2.7 and 4.0 respectively, the difference being highly significant (p < 0.0001). Subepididymal orchiectomy maintains esthetic appearance of scrotum and provides superior patient satisfaction as compared to standard total and subcapsular orchiectomy, while achieving equal efficacy. Bilateral sub-epididymal orchiectomy may thus be considered procedure of choice to achieve androgen ablation in advanced prostatic carcinoma.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, S. N. Medical College, Agra, India ; 4/18c, Bagh Farzana, Civil Lines, Agra, 282002 Uttar Pradesh India.
authors.forename: Mayank
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Agarwal
authors.affiliation: Urology Division, Department of Surgery, SN Medical College, Agra, Uttar Pradesh 282002 India.
authors.forename: Madhu Sudan
authors.initials: MS
authors.lastname: Agrawal
keywords: Epididymis; Orchiectomy; Prostatic neoplasms; Testis
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2001 Sep 1;19(17):3750-7
references.pmid: 11533098
references.citation: Urology. 1998 Mar;51(3):389-96
references.pmid: 9510340
references.citation: J Urol. 1959 Jul;82(1):145-7
references.pmid: 13665824
references.citation: J Urol. 2005 Sep;174(3):893-7
references.pmid: 16093982
references.citation: J Urol. 2001 Jan;165(1):104-7
references.pmid: 11125375
references.citation: Prostate. 1982;3(2):115-21
references.pmid: 6211662
references.citation: Urology. 1987 Jul;30(1):27-8
references.pmid: 3603905
references.citation: Urology. 1990 Jul;36(1):91-2
references.pmid: 2368237
references.citation: Urology. 1984 Jul;24(1):38-40
references.pmid: 6740847
references.citation: J Urol. 1990 Oct;144(4):942-4
references.pmid: 2118965
references.citation: J Androl. 2004 May-Jun;25(3):375-81
references.pmid: 15064315
references.citation: Eur Urol. 1998 Sep;34(3):210-5
references.pmid: 9732195
references.citation: J Urol. 2004 Sep;172(3):1042-4
references.pmid: 15311033
references.citation: J Urol. 1998 Jun;159(6):1993-6; discussion 1996-7
references.pmid: 9598505