Update on laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 173-180

  Hoznek, András ^a   Menard, Yohann ^a   Salomon, Laurent ^a   Abbou, Clément Claude ^a  

^a HENRI MONDOR HOSPITAL   (France)

Author keywords

Laparoscopic surgery; Prostate neoplasms; Robotic surgery

Indexed keywords

BLEEDING; CANCER SURGERY; CATHETERIZATION; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; METHODOLOGY; MORBIDITY; OPERATION DURATION; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATECTOMY; RECTUM INJURY; REVIEW; ROBOTICS; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URETER INJURY;

EID: 17844409070     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mou.0000165551.71792.b9     Document Type: Review

References (62)

1. Guillonneau B, Rozet F, Cathelineau X, et al. Perioperative complications of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris 3-year experience. J Urol 2002; 167:51-56.
2. Stolzenburg JU, Truss MC, Do M, et al. Evolution of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE) - technical improvements and development of a nerve-sparing, potency-preserving approach. World J Urol 2003; 21:147-152.
3. Lepor H, Kaci L. Contemporary evaluation of operative parameters and complications related to open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2003; 62:702-706. The authors report a series of 500 recent retropubic laparoscopic radical prostatectomies, When compared with historical series, these data show a dramatic improvement in complication rate, transfusion rate and postoperative morbidity. It has been suggested that novel minimally invasive techniques should be compared with such concurrent contemporary series.
4. Dillioglugil O, Leibman BD, Leibman NS, et al. Risk factors for complications and morbidity after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 1997; 157:1760-1767.
5. Cathelineau X, Cahill D, Widmer H, et al. Transperitoneal or extraperitoneal approach for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a false debate over a real challenge. J Urol 2004; 171:714-716. This is an important comparative study. In the authors' experience, transperitoneal and extraperitoneal LRP are equivalent in terms of operative, postoperative and pathological data. According to the authors, each surgeon has to choose considering personal experience, training and standardization.
6. Roumeguere T, Bollens R, Vanden Bossche M, et al. Radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of oncological and functional results between open and laparoscopic approaches. World J Urol 2003; 20:360-366.
7. Slabaugh TK Jr, Marshall FF. A comparison of minimally invasive open and laparoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 2004; 172:2545-2548.
8. Artibani W, Grosso G, Novara G, et al. Is laparoscopic radical prostatectomy better than traditional retropubic radical prostatectomy? An analysis of perioperative morbidity in two contemporary series in Italy. Eur Urol 2003; 44:401-406.
9. Brehmer B, Borchers H, Kirschner-Hermanns R, et al. Perioperative morbidity of the extended radical perineal prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2001; 40:139-143.
10. Catalona WJ, Carvalhal GF, Mager DE, Smith DS. Potency, continence and complication rates in 1,870 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol 1999; 162:433-438.
11. 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; 166:1729-1733.
12. Ruiz L, Salomon L, Hoznek A, et al. Comparison of early oncologic results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach. Eur Urol 2004; 46:50-54.
13. Rassweiler J, Sentker L, Seemann O, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique: an analysis of the first 180 cases. J Urol 2001; 166:2101-2108.
14. Nadu A, Salomon L, Hoznek A, et al. Early removal of the catheter after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2001; 166:1662-1664.
15. Patel R, Lepor H. Removal of urinary catheter on postoperative day 3 or 4 after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2003; 61:156-160.
16. Patel R, Fiske J, Lepor H. Tamsulosin reduces the incidence of acute urinary retention following early removal of the urinary catheter after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2003; 62:287-291. This is an elegant demonstration showing that early catheter removal after radical prostatectomy may lead to acute urinary retention; a 4-7 day catheterization is considered to be more optimal by these authors.
17. Hoznek A, Antiphon P, Borkowski T, et al. Assessment of surgical technique and perioperative morbidity associated with extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2003; 61:617-622.
18. Hoznek A, Samadi DB, Salomon L, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: published series. Curr Urol Rep 2002; 3:152-158.
19. Erdogru T, Teber D, Frede T, et al. Comparison of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using match-pair analysis. Eur Urol 2004; 46:312-319. The authors compared the operative parameters of the transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches in match-paired patient groups. This study is remarkable and important because of its study design.
20. Gill IS, Zippe CD. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: technique. Urol Clin North Am 2001; 28:423-436.
21. Wieder JA, Soloway MS. Incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 1998; 160:299-315.
22. Carter HB, Sauvageot J, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. Prospective evaluation of men with stage T1C adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1997; 157:2206-2209.
23. 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.
24. Shah O, Melamed J, Lepor H. Analysis of apical soft tissue margins during radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 2001; 165:1943-1948.
25. Guillonneau B, el Fettouh H, Baumert H, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological evaluation after 1,000 cases at Montsouris Institute. J Urol 2003; 169:1261-1266.
26. Rassweiler J, Seemann O, Schulze M, et al. Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. J Urol 2003; 169:1689-1693.
27. Stolzenburg JU, Do M, Rabenalt R, et al. Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: initial experience after 70 procedures. J Urol 2003; 169:2066-2071.
28. Lepor H, Kaci L. The impact of open radical retropubic prostatectomy on continence and lower urinary tract symptoms: a prospective assessment using validated self-administered outcome instruments. J Urol 2004; 171:1216-1219.
29. Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Doublet JD, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 550 procedures. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2002; 43:123-133.
30. Salomon L, Anastasiadis AG, Katz R, et al. Urinary continence and erectile function: a prospective evaluation of functional results after radical laparoscopic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2002; 42:338-343.
31. Rassweiler J, Schulze M, Teber D, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: functional and oncological outcomes. Curr Opin Urol 2004; 14:75-82.
32. Stolzenburg J, Truss M, Do M, et al. Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. Results after 300 procedures [in German]. Urologe A 2004; 43:698-707.
33. Eden CG, King D, Kooiman GG, et al. Transperitoneal or extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does the approach matter? J Urol 2004; 172:2218-2223. An interesting discussion concerning the arguments supporting the advantages of the extraperitoneal laparoscopic approach.
34. Walsh PC, Marschke P, Ricker D, Burnett AL. Patient-reported urinary continence and sexual function after anatomic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2000:55:58-61.
35. Kim ED, Nath R, Slawin KM, et al. Bilateral nerve grafting during radical retropubic prostatectomy: extended follow-up. Urology 2001; 58:983-987.
36. Stanford JL, Feng Z, Hamilton AS, et al. Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. JAMA 2000; 283:354-360.
37. Katz R, Salomon L, Hoznek A, et al. Patient reported sexual function following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2002; 168:2078-2082.
38. Su LM, Link RE, Bhayani SB, et al. Nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: replicating the open surgical technique. Urology 2004; 64:123-127. The nerve-sparing LRP technique developed by the authors replicates established open surgical principles and the results of the gold standard anatomical nerve-sparing retropubic radical prostatectomy.
39. Schuessler WW, Vancaillie TG, Reich H, Griffith DP. Transperitoneal endosurgical lymphadenectomy in patients with localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1991; 145:988-991.
40. Kavoussi LR, Schuessler WW, Vancaillie TG, Clayman RV. Laparoscopic approach to the seminal vesicles. J Urol 1993; 150:417-419.
41. Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris technique. J Urol 2000; 163:1643-1649.
42. Bollens R, Vanden Bossche M, Roumeguere T, et al. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: results after 50 cases. Eur Urol 2001; 40:65-69.
43. Stolzenburg JU, Do M, Pfeiffer H, et al. The endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): technique and initial experience. World J Urol 2002; 20:48-55.
44. Dubernard P, Benchetrit S, Chaffange P, et al. Retrograde extraperitoneal laparoscopic prostatectomy (REIP). Simplified technique (based on a series of 100 cases [in French]). Prog Urol 2003; 13:163-174.
45. Bollens R, Roumeguere T, Quackels T, et al. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Brussels technique. Contemp Urol 2005; in press.
46. Stolzenburg J, Truss M, Bekos A, et al. Does the extraperitoneal laparoscopic approach improve the outcome of radical prostatectomy? Curr Urol Rep 2004; 5:115-122.
47. Brown JA, Rodin DM, Lee B, Dahl DM. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and body mass index: an assessment of 151 sequential cases. J Urol 2005; 173:442-445.
48. Brown JA, Rodin D, Lee B, Dahl DM. Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal approach to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: an assessment of 156 cases. Urology 2005; 65:320-324.
49. Dahl DM, L'esperance JO, Trainer AF, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial 70 cases at a U.S. university medical center. Urology 2002; 60:859-863.
50. Abreu SC, Gill IS, Kaouk JH, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: comparison of transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal approach. J Urol 2002; 167(4 Suppl.):19.
51. Meininger D, Byhahn C, Wolfram M, et al. Prolonged intraperitoneal versus extraperitoneal insufflation of carbon dioxide in patients undergoing totally endoscopic robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Surg Endosc 2004; 18:829-833.
52. Wolfram M, Brautigam R, Engl T, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Frankfurt technique. World J Urol 2003; 21:128-132.
53. Cathelineau X, Rozet F, Vallancien G. Robotic radical prostatectomy: the European experience. Urol Clin North Am 2004; 31:693-699; viii.
54. Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Edwards RA, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy: a technique to reduce pT2 positive margins. Urology 2004; 64:1224-1228.
55. Tewari A, Kaul S, Menon M. Robotic radical prostatectomy: a minimally invasive therapy for prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 2005; 6:45-48.
56. 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.
57. Abbou CC, Hoznek A, Salomon L, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot. J Urol 2001; 165:1964-1966.
58. Binder J, Kramer W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2001; 87:408-410.
59. Pasticier G, Rietbergen JB, Guillonneau B, et al. Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: feasibility study in men. Eur Urol 2001; 40:70-74.
60. Rassweiler J, Frede T, Seemann O, et al. Telesurgical laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial experience. Eur Urol 2001; 40:75-83.
61. Gettman MT, Hoznek A, Salomon L, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of the extraperitoneal approach using the da Vinci robotic system. J Urol 2003; 170:416-419.
62. 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.