Advances in robotic prostatectomy

Current Urology Reports

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 250-256

  Boorjian, Stephen A ^b   Gettman, Matthew T ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BLADDER OBSTRUCTION; CONVALESCENCE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DEEP VEIN THROMBOSIS; ECONOMICS; HEMATURIA; HUMAN; ILEUS; INTESTINE INJURY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE HEMORRHAGE; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; ROBOTICS; URINE RETENTION; WOUND DEHISCENCE;

HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; MALE; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; QUALITY OF LIFE; ROBOTICS;

EID: 44449142371     PISSN: 15272737     EISSN: 15346285     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11934-008-0043-y     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Roehl KA, Han M, Ramos CG, et al.: Cancer progression and survival rates following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy in 3478 consecutive patients: long-term results. J Urol 2004, 172:910-914.
2. Ward JF, Slezak JM, Blute ML, et al.: Radical prostatectomy for clinically advanced (cT3) prostate cancer since the advent of prostate-specific antigen testing: 15-year outcome. BJU Int 2005, 95:751-756.
3. Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, et al.: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology 1997, 50:179-181.
4. Abbou CC, Hoznek A, Salomon L, et al.: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot. J Urol 2001, 165:1964-1966.
5. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Tewari A, et al.: Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol 2002, 168:945-949.
6. Esposito MP, Ilbeigi P, Ahmed M, Lanteri V: Use of a fourth arm in da Vinci robot-assisted extraperitoneal laparoscopic prostatectomy: novel technique. Urology 2005, 66:649-652.
7. Mattel A, Naspro R, Annino F, et al.: Tension and energy-free robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with interfascial dissection of the neurovascular bundles. Eur Urol 2007, 52:687-695.
8. 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, 174:2291-2296.
9. Gettman MT, Blute ML: Critical comparison of laparoscopic, robotic, and open radical prostatectomy: techniques, outcomes, and cost. Curr Urol Rep 2006, 7:193-199.
10. Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody JO, et al.: 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, 31:701-717.
11. • Tewari A, El-Hakim A, Rao S, Raman JD: Identification of the retrotrigonal layer as a key anatomical landmark during robotically assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2006, 98:829-832. This study provides a concise, well-illustrated description of a tissue layer consistently encountered during RALP after division of the posterior bladder neck. This landmark may be used to guide dissection of the vas deferens and seminal vesicles, particularly for patients with challenging anatomy.
12. Tewari A, Takenaka A, Mtui E, et al.: The proximal neurovascular plate and the tri-zonal neural architecture around the prostate gland: importance in the athermal robotic technique of nerve-sparing prostatectomy. BJU Int 2006, 98:314-323.
13. • Kaul S, Bhandari A, Hemal A, et al.: Robotic radical prostatectomy with preservation of the prostatic fascia: a feasibility study. Urology 2005, 66:1261-1265. Oft-quoted, detailed description of "Veil of Aphrodite" dissection.
14. Kaul S, Menon M: Robotic radical prostatectomy: evolution from conventional to VIP. World J Urol 2006, 24:152-160.
15. Savera AT, Kaul S, Badani K, et al.: Robotic radical prostatectomy with the "Veil of Aphrodite" technique: histologic evidence of enhanced nerve sparing. Eur Urol 2006, 49:1065-1074.
16. Tewari A, Bigelow K, Rao S, et al.: Anatomic restoration technique of continence mechanism and preservation of puboprostatic collar: a novel modification to achieve early urinary continence in men undergoing robotic prostatec-tomy. Urology 2007, 69:726-731.
17. Farnham SB, Webster TM, Herrell SD, Smith JA Jr.: Intraoperative blood loss and transfusion requirements for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2006, 67:360-363.
18. Raman JD, Dong S, Levinson A, et al.: Robotic radical prostatectomy: operative technique, outcomes, and learning curve. JSLS 2007, 11:1-7.
19. Bhandari A, McIntire L, Kaul SA, et al.: Perioperative complications of robotic radical prostatectomy after the learning curve. J Urol 2005, 174:915-918.
20. Hu JC, Nelson RA, Wilson TG, et al.: Perioperative complications of laparoscopic and robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2006, 175:541-546.
21. Secin FP, Jiborn T, Bjartell AS, et al.: Multi-institutional study of symptomatic deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in prostate cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2008, 53:134-145.
22. Patel VR, Tully AS, Holmes R, Lindsay J: Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting - the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol 2005, 174:269-272.
23. Wood DP, Schulte R, Dunn RL, et al.: Short-term health outcome differences between robotic and conventional radical prostatectomy. Urology 2007, 70:945-949.
24. Nelson B, Kaufman M, Broughton G, et al.: Comparison of length of hospital stay between radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Urol 2007, 177:929-931.
25. Zorn KC, Gofrit ON, Orvieto MA, et al.: Da Vinci robot error and failure rates: single institution experience on a single three-arm robot unit of more than 700 consecutive robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies. J Endourol 2007, 21:1341-1344.
26. Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Edwards RA, et al.: Robotic radical prostatectomy: a technique to reduce pT2 positive margins. Urology 2004, 64:1224-1228.
27. 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, 49:866-872.
28. Weizer AZ, Ye Z, Hollingsworth JM, et al.: Adoption of new technology and healthcare quality: surgical margins after robotic prostatectomy. Urology 2007, 70:96-100.
29. Ahlering TE, Woo D, Eichel L, et al.: Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon's outcomes. Urology 2004, 63:819-822.
30. DiMarco DS, Ho KL, Leibovich BC, et al.: Early complications and surgical margin status following radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) compared to robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). J Urol 2005, 173(Suppl):277.
31. •• 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, 178:2385-2390. This recent analysis presents the results from a high volume center to thoughtfully compare outcomes and offer explanations for the results obtained and differences noted. Patients undergoing RALP were found to have a lower rate of positive margins (15% vs 35%), although the most common location of a positive margin remained at the apex.
32. Kohl SK, Balaji KC, Smith LM, et al.: Clinical significance of benign glands at surgical margins in robotic radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 2007, 69:1112-1116.
33. • Webster TM, Herrell SD, Chang SS, et al.: Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of postoperative pain. J Urol 2005, 174:912-914. Decreased pain is widely cited in the marketing of RALP, but this well-done study compared patients treated with RALP to patients undergoing open RRP who were both managed along an identical postoperative pathway, using ketorolac and minimizing narcotic medications, to demonstrate that there was no significant difference between the groups.
34. Miller J, Smith A, Kouba E, et al.: Prospective evaluation of short-term impact and recovery of health related quality of life in men undergoing robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2007, 178:854-859.
35. Wei JT, Dunn RL, Litwin MS, et al.: Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology 2000, 56:899-905.
36. Tseng TY, Kuebler HR, Cancel QV, et al.: Prospective health-related quality-of-life assessment in an intial cohort of patients undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2006, 68:1061-1066.
37. 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.
38. Mouraviev V, Nosnik I, Sun L, et al.: Financial comparative analysis of minimally invasive surgery to open surgery for localized prostate cancer: a single-institution experience. Urology 2007, 69:311-314.
39. • Scales CD Jr, Jones PJ, Eisenstein EL, et al.: Local cost structures and the economics of robot assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2005, 174:2323-2329. This paper presents a well-conceived financial comparison of the cost of RALP versus open RRP, and offers possible explanations for the contradictory results from other studies regarding the cost discrepancy of the two procedures.
40. Herrell SD, Smith JA Jr: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: what is the learning curve? Urology 2005, 66:105-107.
41. Herrell SD, Smith JA Jr.: Laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: what are the real advantages? BJU Int 2005, 95:3-4.