Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic Prostatectomy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Urologic Robotic Surgery in Clinical Practice

  • 645 Accesses

Abstract

In the USA, approximately 77,000 radical prostatectomies are performed yearly for the treatment of prostate cancer. Although a number of alternative treatment options are available for organ-confined prostate cancer, retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) remains the gold standard demonstrating a reduction in disease-specific mortality for affected patients.

However, the procedure has inherent morbidity associated with it. Therefore, less invasive surgical techniques have been sought; one such alternative is robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). In recent years RALP has become a forerunner in treatment options, yielding comparable medium-term perioperative and functional outcomes.

Robotic-assisted prostatectomy has allowed urologists to enter the realm of minimally invasive surgery by incorporating open-surgery movements to a laparoscopic environment. Current RALP data from several series yield perioperative and functional outcomes comparable to the gold standard. However, long-term data is needed in order to establish its true efficacy.

Using MEDLINE we performed a search for publications on perioperative and functional outcomes related to RALP. We present a review of the available literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abbou CC, Hoznek A et al. (2001) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot. J Urol 165(6 Pt 1): 1964–1966

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ahlering TE, Skarecky D et al. (2003) Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 170(5):1738–1741

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ahlering TE, Woo D et al. (2004) Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon’s outcomes. Urology 63(5):819–822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ahlering TE, Eichel L et al. (2005) Rapid communication: early potency outcomes with cautery-free neurovascular bundle preservation with robotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 19(6):715–718

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bentas W, Wolfram M et al. (2003) Robotic technology and the translation of open radical prostatectomy to laparoscopy: the early Frankfurt experience with robotic radical prostatectomy and one year follow-up. Eur Urol 44(2):175–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Binder J, Kramer W (2001) Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 87(4):408–410

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson S, Nilsson A et al. (2006) Postoperative urinary continence after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Scand J Urol Nephrol 40(2):103–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Catalona WJ, Carvalhal GF et al. (1999) Potency, continence and complication rates in 1,870 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol 162(2):433–438

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chien GW, Mikhail AA et al. (2005) Modified clipless antegrade nerve preservation in robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with validated sexual function evaluation. Urology 66(2):419–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eden CG, Cahill D et al. (2002) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the initial UK series. BJU Int 90(9):876–882

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler FJ, Jr., Barry MJ et al. (1993) Patient-reported complications and follow-up treatment after radical prostatectomy. The National Medicare Experience: 1988–1990 (updated June 1993). Urology 42(6):622–629

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X et al. (1999) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: technical and early oncological assessment of 40 operations. Eur Urol 36(1):14–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guillonneau B, Vallancien G (2000) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris experience. J Urol 163(2):418–422

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X et al. (2002) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 550 procedures. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 43(2):123–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Joseph JV, Vicente I et al. (2005) Robot-assisted vs pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: are there any differences? BJU Int 96(1):39–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kundu SD, Roehl KA et al. (2004. Potency, continence and complications in 3,477 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol 172(6 Pt 1):2227–2231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lavery HJ, Thaly RK et al. (2007) Robotic equipment malfunction during robotic prostatectomy: A multi-institutional study. Urology 70(Suppl. 3A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepor H, Nieder AM et al. (2001) Intra-operative and postoperative complications of radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1,000 cases. J Urol 166(5):1729–1733

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meng MV, Elkin EP et al. (2003) Predictors of treatment after initial surveillance in men with prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE. J Urol 170(6 Pt 1):2279–2283

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Menon M, Shrivastava A et al. (2002a) Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol 168(3):945–949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menon M, Tewari A et al. (2002b) Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology 60(5):864–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menon M, Tewari A (2003a) Robotic radical prostatectomy and the Vattikuti Urology Institute technique: an interim analysis of results and technical points. Urology 61(4 Suppl 1):15–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Menon M, Tewari A et al. (2003b) Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technique. J Urol 169(6):2289–2292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Menon M, Kaul S et al. (2005a) Potency following robotic radical prostatectomy: a questionnaire based analysis of outcomes after conventional nerve sparing and prostatic fascia sparing techniques. J Urol 174(6):2291–2296, discussion 2296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menon M, Shrivastava A et al. (2005b) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: conventional and robotic. Urology 66(5 Suppl):101–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menon M, Shrivastava A et al. (2007) Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol 51(3):648–657; discussion 657–658

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mikhail AA, Stockton BR et al. (2006) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in overweight and obese patients. Urology 67(4):774–779

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Myers RP (2001) Radical prostatectomy: making it a better operation in the new millennium. Int J Urol 8(7):9–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer KJ, Shah K et al. (2007) Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Peri-operative outcomes of 1500 consecutive cases. Urology 70(Suppl. 3A):136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasticier G, Rietbergen JB et al. (2001) Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: feasibility study in men. Eur Urol 40(1):70–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Patel VR, Tully AS et al. (2005) Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting—the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol 174(1):269–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rassweiler J, Frede T et al. (2001a) Telesurgical laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Initial experience. Eur Urol 40(1):75–83

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rassweiler J, Sentker L et al. (2001b) Heilbronn laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Technique and results after 100 cases. Eur Urol 40(1):54–64

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rassweiler J, Seemann O et al. (2003a) Technical evolution of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after 450 cases. J Endourol 17(3):143–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rassweiler J, Seemann O et al. (2003b) Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. J Urol 169(5):1689–1693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rassweiler J, Schulze M et al. (2004) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: functional and oncological outcomes. Curr Opin Urol 14(2):75–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reiner WG, Walsh PC (1979) An anatomical approach to the surgical management of the dorsal vein and Santorini’s plexus during radical retropubic surgery. J Urol 121(2):198–200

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rocco B, Gregori A et al. (2007a) Posterior reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter allows a rapid recovery of continence after transperitoneal videolaparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 51(4):996–1003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rocco F, Carmignani L et al. (2007b) Early continence recovery after open radical prostatectomy with restoration of the posterior aspect of the rhabdosphincter. Eur Urol 52(2):376–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon L, Levrel O et al. (2002) Radical prostatectomy by the retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic approach: 12 years of experience in one center. Eur Urol 42(2):104–110; discussion 110–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon L, Sebe P et al. (2004) Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: part I. BJU Int 94(2):238–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schuessler WW, Vancaillie TG et al. (1991) Transperitoneal endosurgical lymphadenectomy in patients with localized prostate cancer. J Urol 145(5):988–991

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schuessler WW, Schulam PG et al. (1997) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology 50(6):854–857

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith JA, Jr. (2004) Robotically assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: an assessment of its contemporary role in the surgical management of localized prostate cancer. Am J Surg 188(4A Suppl):63–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tewari A, Srivasatava A et al. (2003) A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int 92(3):205–210

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Trabulsi EJ, Hassen WA et al. (2003) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a review of techniques and results worldwide. Minerva Urol Nefrol 55(4):239–250

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Turk I, Deger IS et al. (2001) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Experiences with 145 interventions. Urologe A 40(3):199–206

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh PC, Lepor H (1987) The role of radical prostatectomy in the management of prostatic cancer. Cancer 60(3 Suppl): 526–537

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh PC, Marschke P et al. (2000) ”Patient-reported urinary continence and sexual function after anatomic radical prostatectomy. Urology 55(1):58–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Webster TM, Herrell SD et al. (2005) Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of postoperative pain. J Urol 174(3):912–914; discussion 914

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfram M, Brautigam R et al. (2003) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Frankfurt technique. World J Urol 21(3):128–132

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Young HH (2002) The early diagnosis and radical cure of carcinoma of the prostate. Being a study of 40 cases and presentation of a radical operation which was carried out in four cases. 1905. J Urol 168(3):914–921

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Robotic & Minimally Invasive Urologic Surgery, Florida Hospital Global Robotics Institute, Celebration, FL, USA

    Vipul R. Patel

  2. Department of Urology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA

    Kenneth J. Palmer

  3. Center for Robotic & Computer-Assisted Surgery, Columbus, OH, USA

    Geoff Coughlin

  4. Department of Urology, Nancy School of Medicine, Nancy, France

    Mario F. Chammas

Authors
  1. Vipul R. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kenneth J. Palmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Geoff Coughlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mario F. Chammas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    Copyright information

    © 2008 Springer-Verlag London Limited

    About this chapter

    Cite this chapter

    Patel, V.R., Palmer, K.J., Coughlin, G., Chammas, M.F. (2008). Robotic Prostatectomy. In: Dasgupta, P. (eds) Urologic Robotic Surgery in Clinical Practice. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-243-2_3

    Download citation

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-243-2_3

    • Published:

    • Publisher Name: Springer, London

    • Print ISBN: 978-1-84800-242-5

    • Online ISBN: 978-1-84800-243-2

    • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

    Publish with us

    Policies and ethics

    Search

    Navigation