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
  • 1.

    Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody JO. 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 Am 2004;31:701717.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Webster T, Herrell SD, Chang SS. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus radical retropubic prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of postoperative pain. J Urol 2005;174:269272.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Smith JA Jr. Robotically assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: an assessment of its contemporary role in the surgical management of localized prostate cancer. Am J Surg 2004;188(4A Suppl):63S67S.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Holzbeierlein JM, Smith JA. Radical prostatectomy and collaborative care pathways. Semin Urol Oncol 2000;8:6065.

  • 5.

    Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol 1982;128:492497.

  • 6.

    Pasticier G, Rietbergen JB, Guillonneau B. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: feasibility study in men. Eur Urol 2001;40:7074.

  • 7.

    Abbou CC, Hoznek A, Salomon L. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot. J Urol 2001;165(6 pt 1):19641966.

  • 8.

    Binder J, Kramer W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2001;87:408410.

  • 9.

    Rassweiler J, Frede T, Seemann O. Telesurgical laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Initial experience. Eur Urol 2001;40:7583.

  • 10.

    Menon M, Tewari A. Robotic radical prostatectomy and the Vattikuti Urology Institute technique: an interim analysis of results and technical points. Urology 2003;61(Suppl 1):1520.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody J. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technique. J Urol 2003;169:22892292.

  • 12.

    Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B. Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology 2002:60:864868.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Lee D. Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2003;170:17381741.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Menon M, Shrivastava A, Tewari A. Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol 2002;168:945949.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Wolfram M, Brautigam R, Engl T. Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Frankfurt technique. World J Urol 2003;21:128132.

  • 16.

    Bentas W, Wolfram M, Jones J. 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 2003:44:175181.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Ahlering TE, Woo D, Eichel L. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon's outcomes. Urology 2004;63:819822.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Patel VR, Tully AS, Holmes R. Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting – the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol 2005;174:269272.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robotic-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int 2003:92:205210.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Menon M, Hemal AK, Tewari A. The technique of apical dissection of the prostate and urethrovesical anastomosis in robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2004;93:715719.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Fowler FJ Jr, Barry MU, Lu-Yau G. Patient-reported complications and follow up treatment after radical prostatectomy. Urology 1993;42:622629.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Geary ES, Dendinger TE, Frieha FS. Nerve sparing radical prostatectomy: a different view. J Urol 1995;154:145149.

  • 23.

    Geary ES, Dendinger TE, Frieha FS. Incontinence and vesical neck strictures following radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 1995;45:10001006.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Talcott JA, Rieker P, Propert KJ. Patient reported impotence and incontinence after nervesparing radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:11171123.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Walsh PA, Marschke P, Ricker D. Patient reported urinary continence and sexual function after anatomic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2000;55:5861.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Cancer control and quality of the following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy: results at 10 years. J Urol 1994;152:18311836.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    Catalona WJ, Carvalhal GF, Mager DE. Potency, continence, and complication rates in 1870 consecutive radical retropubic prostatecomies. J Urol 1999;162:433438.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Quinlan DM, Epstein GI, Carter BS. Sexual function following radical prostatectomy: influence of preservation of neurovascular bundles. J Urol 1991;145:9981002.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29.

    Menon M, Kaul S, Bhandan A. Potency following robotical radical prostatectomy: a questionnaire based analysis of outcomes after conventional nerve sparing and prostatic fascia sparing techniques. J Urol 2005;174:22912296.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    Chien GW, Mikhail AA, Orvieto MA. Modified clipless antegrade nerve preservation in robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with validated sexual function evaluation. Urology 2005;66:419423.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    Han M, Partin AW, Chan DY. An evaluation of the decreasing incidence of positive surgical margins in a large retropubic prostatectomy series. J Urol 2004;171:2326.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    Herrell SD, Smith JA Jr. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: what is the learning curve? Urology 2005;66:105107.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 122 84 7
PDF Downloads 25 18 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0