Point: Open Radical Prostatectomy Should Not Be Abandoned

Authors:
William J. EllisFrom the Department of Urology, Washington University, Seattle, Washington.

Search for other papers by William J. Ellis in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMedClose
 MD
and
Paul H. LangeFrom the Department of Urology, Washington University, Seattle, Washington.

Search for other papers by Paul H. Lange in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMedClose
 MD
Volume/Issue:
Volume 5: Issue 7
Online Publication Date:
Aug 2007
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2007.0058
Full access

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is now one of the most common ways to treat prostate cancer. Although it is undoubtedly an outstanding procedure, in many contexts the advantages of the laparoscopic approach are overstated. The authors believe that open radical prostatectomy will continue to have an important role. For example, an extensive lymphadenectomy is more easily accomplished with the open technique and may be important in staging and possibly curing patients at high risk for prostate cancer. Also, tactile sensation is a valuable asset in assessing the extent of local tumor, and this cannot yet be replicated with a robotic approach. Furthermore, obese patients, those with a history of extensive prior surgical procedures, and men with extremely large prostates may experience advantages with the open technique. Finally, the open approach has a significant advantage in terms of hospital costs.

Correspondence: William J. Ellis, MD, Department of Urology, Washington University, Box 356510, Seattle, WA 98195. E-mail: wjellis@u.washington.edu
  • Collapse
  • Expand
  • 1.

    Marshall FF, Chan D, Partin AW et al.. Minilaparotomy radical retropubic prostatectomy: technique and results. J Urol 1998;160:2440–2445.

  • 2.

    Nelson B, Kaufman M, Broughton G et al.. Comparison of length of stay between radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Urol 2007;177:929–931.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Farnham SB, Webster TM, Herrell SD, Smith JA. Intraoperative blood loss and transfusion requirements for robotic assisted radical prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2006;67:360–363.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Begg CB, Riedel ER, Bach PB et al.. Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med 2002;1:1138–1144.

  • 5.

    Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody J et al.. Vittakuti Institute prostatectomy: technique. J Urol 2003;169:2289–2292.

  • 6.

    Patel R, Lepor H. Removal of urinary catheter on postoperative day 2 or 4 after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2003;61:156–160.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Warncke SH, Mattei A, Fuechsel FG et al.. Detection rate and operating time required for gamma probe–guided sentinel lymph node resection after injection of technetium-99m nanocolloid into the prostate with and without preoperative imaging. Eur Urol 2007;52:126–132.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Sim HG, Kliot M, Lange PH et al.. Two-year outcome of unilateral sural nerve interposition graft after radical prostatectomy. Urology 200;68:1290–1294.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Gettman MT. The new economics of radical prostatectomy: cost comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robot assisted techniques. J Urol 2004;172:1431–1435.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Scales CD, Jones PJ, Eisenstein EL et al.. Local cost structures and the economics of robot assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2005;174:2323–2329.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    McConnell JD, Clayman RV, Flanigan RC et al.. The future of urology and urologic education in America. American Board of Urology newsletter. Available at: http://www.auanet.org/about/futureuroed.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2007.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Lee D, Clayman RV. Succesful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2003;170:1738–1741.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Herrell SD, Smith JA. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: what is the learning curve? Urology 2005;66(5 suppl):105–107.

Copyright:
Copyright © 2007 by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network
Page Numbers:
4
Article Category:
Research Article
Received:
17 Apr 2007
Accepted:
10 May 2007
Print Publication Date:
01 Aug 2007
Online Publication Date:
Aug 2007
Keywords:
Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy; prostatectomy; open radical retropubic prostatectomy; lymphadenectomy
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 171 48 4
PDF Downloads 134 56 3
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0