Counterpoint: Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: Perhaps the Surgical Gold Standard for Prostate Cancer Care

Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) has gained immense popularity. This article examines the most critical outcome measures in prostate cancer surgery and shows the reasons why this technique is gaining in popularity. Operative time, length of stay, blood loss, transfusions, postoperative pain, continence, potency, and cancer control all favor or tend toward improvement and benefit in RALP compared with traditional radical retropubic prostatectomy. In addition, as even greater experience and technological improvements are incorporated, further outcome improvements will be appreciated. RALP is now an accepted treatment option for prostate cancer and may soon be the most desirable treatment of prostate cancer patients.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

Correspondence: Mark H. Kawachi, MD, FACS, Prostate Cancer Center, City of Hope, 1500 East Duarte Road, Duarte, CA 91010. E-mail: MKawachi@coh.org

References

  • 1.

    MenonMTewariAPeabodyJO. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy, a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy for management of localized carcinoma of the prostate: experience of over 1100 cases. Urol Clin North Am2004;31:701717.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    WebsterTHerrellSDChangSS. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus radical retropubic prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of postoperative pain. J Urol2005;174:269272.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    SmithJAJr. Robotically assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: an assessment of its contemporary role in the surgical management of localized prostate cancer. Am J Surg2004;188(4A Suppl):63S67S.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    HolzbeierleinJMSmithJA. Radical prostatectomy and collaborative care pathways. Semin Urol Oncol2000;8:6065.

  • 5.

    WalshPCDonkerPJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol1982;128:492497.

  • 6.

    PasticierGRietbergenJBGuillonneauB. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: feasibility study in men. Eur Urol2001;40:7074.

  • 7.

    AbbouCCHoznekASalomonL. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot. J Urol2001;165(6 pt 1):19641966.

  • 8.

    BinderJKramerW. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int2001;87:408410.

  • 9.

    RassweilerJFredeTSeemannO. Telesurgical laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Initial experience. Eur Urol2001;40:7583.

  • 10.

    MenonMTewariA. Robotic radical prostatectomy and the Vattikuti Urology Institute technique: an interim analysis of results and technical points. Urology2003;61(Suppl 1):1520.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    MenonMTewariAPeabodyJ. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technique. J Urol2003;169:22892292.

  • 12.

    MenonMTewariABaizeB. Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology2002:60:864868.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    AhleringTESkareckyDLeeD. Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol2003;170:17381741.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    MenonMShrivastavaATewariA. Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol2002;168:945949.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    WolframMBrautigamREnglT. Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Frankfurt technique. World J Urol2003;21:128132.

  • 16.

    BentasWWolframMJonesJ. 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 Urol2003:44:175181.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    AhleringTEWooDEichelL. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon's outcomes. Urology2004;63:819822.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    PatelVRTullyASHolmesR. Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting – the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol2005;174:269272.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    TewariASrivasatavaAMenonM. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robotic-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int2003:92:205210.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    MenonMHemalAKTewariA. The technique of apical dissection of the prostate and urethrovesical anastomosis in robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int2004;93:715719.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    FowlerFJJrBarryMULu-YauG. Patient-reported complications and follow up treatment after radical prostatectomy. Urology1993;42:622629.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    GearyESDendingerTEFriehaFS. Nerve sparing radical prostatectomy: a different view. J Urol1995;154:145149.

  • 23.

    GearyESDendingerTEFriehaFS. Incontinence and vesical neck strictures following radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology1995;45:10001006.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    TalcottJARiekerPPropertKJ. Patient reported impotence and incontinence after nervesparing radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst1997;89:11171123.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    WalshPAMarschkePRickerD. Patient reported urinary continence and sexual function after anatomic radical prostatectomy. Urology2000;55:5861.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    WalshPCPartinAWEpsteinJI. Cancer control and quality of the following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy: results at 10 years. J Urol1994;152:18311836.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    CatalonaWJCarvalhalGFMagerDE. Potency, continence, and complication rates in 1870 consecutive radical retropubic prostatecomies. J Urol1999;162:433438.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    QuinlanDMEpsteinGICarterBS. Sexual function following radical prostatectomy: influence of preservation of neurovascular bundles. J Urol1991;145:9981002.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29.

    MenonMKaulSBhandanA. Potency following robotical radical prostatectomy: a questionnaire based analysis of outcomes after conventional nerve sparing and prostatic fascia sparing techniques. J Urol2005;174:22912296.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    ChienGWMikhailAAOrvietoMA. Modified clipless antegrade nerve preservation in robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with validated sexual function evaluation. Urology2005;66:419423.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    HanMPartinAWChanDY. An evaluation of the decreasing incidence of positive surgical margins in a large retropubic prostatectomy series. J Urol2004;171:2326.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    HerrellSDSmithJAJr. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: what is the learning curve?Urology2005;66:105107.

Article Information

PubMed

Google Scholar

Related Articles

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 80 80 22
PDF Downloads 15 15 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0