ROBOTIC-ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOMES
Authors:
G. T. Gotto; J. A. Eastham
Authors place of work:
Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
Published in the journal:
Urol List 2009; 7(4): 5-9
Summary
Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is gaining popularity despite a paucity of evidence showing significant advantages over open radical prostatectomy (ORP). In fact, RALP has become the most common approach used in the management of clinically localized prostate cancer in the United States. This review provides a critical assessment of the outcomes of ORP and RALP. There is wide variation in the reported oncologic and functional outcomes following ORP and RALP but no prospective randomized studies comparing the two. The few prospective non-randomized studies show inconsistent improvements in some outcomes with one modality over the other but this can be attributed to surgeon preference for a particular technique.
Key words:
outcomes, prostate, prostatic neoplasms, prostatectomy, robotics
Zdroje
1. National Cancer Institute Website: www.cancer.gov. Last accessed: August 18th 2009.
2. Millin T. Retropubic Urinary Surgery: Baltimore, Williams, & Wilkins Co., 1947.
3. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Filen F et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer: the Scandinavian prostate cancer group-4 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008, 100: 1144–1154.
4. Abbou CC, Hoznek A, Salomon L et al. [Remote laparoscopic radical prostatectomy carried out with a robot. Report of a case]. Prog Urol 2000; 10: 520–523.
5. Binder J, Kramer W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2001; 87(4): 408–410.
6. Intuitive Surgical Website: www.intuitivesurgical.com. Last accessed: August 18 2009.
7. Mulhall JP, Rojaz-Cruz C, Muller A. An analysis of sexual health information on radical prostatectomy websites. BJU Int 2009.
8. Lepor H, Nieder AM, Ferrandino MN. Intraoperative and postoperative complications of radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1,000 cases. J Urol 2001; 166(5): 1729–1733.
9. Catalona WJ, Carvalhal GF, Mager DE et al. Potency, continence and complication rates in 1,870 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol 1999; 162(2): 433–438.
10. Bianco FJ Jr, Riedel ER, Begg CB et al. Variations among high volume surgeons in the rate of complications after radical prostatectomy: further evidence that technique matters. J Urol 2005; 173(6): 2099– 2103.
11. Farnham SB, Webster TM, Herrell SD et al. Intraoperative blood loss and transfusion requirements for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2006; 67(2): 360–363.
12. Ficarra V, Novara G, Fracalanza S et al. A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution. BJU Int 2009; 104(4): 534–539.
13. Lowrance WT, Eastham JA, Jacks LM et al. Comparative Effectiveness of Surgical Treatments for Prostate Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis of Postoperative Outcomes (unpublished work).
14. Parsons JK, Bennett JL. Outcomes of retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Urology 2008, 72(2): 412–416.
15. Hull GW, Rabbani F, Abbas F et al. Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Urol 2002; 167: 528–534.
16. Harris MJ. Radical perineal prostatectomy: cost efficient, outcome effective, minimally invasive prostate cancer management. Eur Urol 2003; 44(3): 303–308.
17. Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M et al. Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2005, 174(3): 903–907.
18. Eastham JA, Kuroiwa K, Ohori M et al. Prognostic significance of location of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 2007, 70(5): 965–969.
19. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Sarle R et al. Vattikuti Institute Prostatectomy: a single-team experience of 100 cases. J Endourol 2003; 17(9): 785–790.
20. Menon M, Tewari A. Robotic radical prostatectomy and the Vattikuti Urology Institute technique: an interim analysis of results and technical points. Urology 2003; 61 4 Suppl 1): 15–20.
21. Wolfram M, Brautigam R, Engl T et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Frankfurt technique. World J Urol 2003; 21(3): 128–132.
22. Bentas W, Wolfram M, Jones J et al. 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(2): 175–181.
23. Cathelineau X, Rozet F, Vallancien G. Robotic radical prostatectomy: the European experience. Urol Clin North Am 2004; 31(4): 693–699.
24. Sim HG, Yip SK, Lau WK et al. Early experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Asian J Surg 2004; 27(4): 321–325.
25. Costello AJ, Haxhimolla H, Crowe H et al. Installation of telerobotic surgery and initial experience with telerobotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2005; 96(1): 34–38.
26. Joseph JV, Rosenbaum R, Madeb R et al. Robotic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: an alternative approach. J Urol 2006; 175: 945–950.
27. Chien GW, Mikhail AA, Orvieto MA et al. Modified clipless antegrade nerve preservation in robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with validated sexual function evaluation. Urology 2005; 66(2): 419–423.
28. Van Appledorn S, Bouchier-Hayes D, Agarwal D et al. Robotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: setup and procedural techniques after 150 cases. Urology 2006; 67(2): 364–367.
29. Borin JF, Skarecky DW, Narula N et al. Impact of urethral stump length on continence and positive surgical margins in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Urology 2007; 70(1): 173–177.
30. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol 2007; 51(3): 648–657.
31. Zorn KC, Gofrit ON, Orvieto MA et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: functional and pathologic outcomes with interfascial nerve preservation. Eur Urol 2007; 51(3): 755–762.
32. Smith JA Jr, Chan RC, Chang SS et al. A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2007; 178(6): 2385–2389.
33. Patel VR, Palmer KJ, Coughlin G et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: perioperative outcomes of 1500 cases. J Endourol 2008; 22(10): 2299-2305.
34. Yee DS, Narula N, Amin MB et al. Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Current Evaluation of Surgical Margins in Clinically Low-, Intermediate-, and High-Risk Prostate Cancer. J Endourol 2009; 23(9): 1461–1465.
35. Bianco FJ Jr, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Radical prostatectomy: long-term cancer control and recovery of sexual and urinary function („trifecta“). Urology 2005; 66 (5 Suppl): 83–94.
36. Nielsen ME, Makarov DV, Humphreys E et al. Is it possible to compare PSA recurrence-free survival after surgery and radiotherapy using revised ASTRO criterion--„nadir + 2“? Urology 2008; 72: 389–395.
37. Kleinhans B, Gerharz E, Melekos M et al. Changes of urodynamic findings after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 1999; 35(3): 217–221.
38. Steiner MS. Anatomic basis for the continence-preserving radical retropubic prostatectomy. Semin Urol Oncol 2000; 18(1): 9–18.
39. Walsh PC, Marschke P, Ricker D et al. Patient-reported urinary continence and sexual function after anatomic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2000; 55(1): 58–61.
40. Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M et al. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int 2003; 92(3): 205–210.
41. Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Edwards RA et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy: a technique to reduce pT2 positive margins. Urology 2004, 64(6): 1224–1228.
42. Patel VR, Tully AS, Holmes R et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting--the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol 2005; 174(1): 269–272.
43. Montorsi F, Salonia A, Suardi N et al. Improving the preservation of the urethral sphincter and neurovascular bundles during open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2005; 48(6): 938–945.
44. Graefen M, Walz J, Huland H. Open retropubic nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2006; 49(1): 38–48.
45. Masterson TA, Serio AM, Mulhall JP et al. Modified technique for neurovascular bundle preservation during radical prostatectomy: association between technique and recovery of erectile function. BJU Int 2008; 101(10): 1217–1222.
46. Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Skarecky D. Rapid communication: early potency outcomes with cautery-free neurovascular bundle preservation with robotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2005; 19(6): 715–718.
47. Menon M, Kaul S, Bhandari A et al. Potency following robotic radical prostatectomy: a questionnaire based analysis of outcomes after conventional nerve sparing and prostatic fascia sparing techniques. J Urol 2005; 174(6): 2291–2296.
48. Kaul S, Savera A, Badani K et al. Functional outcomes and oncological efficacy of Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy with Veil of Aphrodite nerve-sparing: an analysis of 154 consecutive patients. BJU Int 2006; 97(3): 467–472.
49. 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.
50. Begg CB, Riedel ER, Bach PB et al. Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med 2002; 346(15): 1138–1144.
51. Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Riedel E et al. Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2003; 170: 2292–2295.
52. Atug F, Castle EP, Srivastav SK et al. Positive surgical margins in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: impact of learning curve on oncologic outcomes. Eur Urol 2006; 49(5): 866–871.
53. Rocco F, Carmignani L, Acquati P et al. Early continence recovery after open radical prostatectomy with restoration of the posterior aspect of the rhabdosphincter. Eur Urol 2007; 52(2): 376–383.
54. Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Borin J. Impact of cautery versus cautery-free preservation of neurovascular bundles on early return of potency. J Endourol 2006; 20(8): 586–589.
Štítky
Paediatric urologist UrologyČlánok vyšiel v časopise
Urological Journal
2009 Číslo 4
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Intraoperational course, early complications and functional outcome in robotic-assisted AND OPEN RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY – A COMPARISON
- SURGICAL ANATOMY OF THE PROSTATE & PELVIC FLOOR FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY & RADICAL CYSTECTOMY: CRITICAL POINTS FOR ACHIEVING THE TRIFECTA OF ONCOLOGIC SAFETY, URINARY CONTROL, AND ERECTILE FUNCTION
- ROBOTIC-ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOMES
- TRANSITION OF WHOLE GLAND CRYOSURGERY TO FOCAL CRYOABLATION FOR THE TREATMENT OF EARLY STAGE LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER