Optimizing cancer control and functional outcomes following robotic prostatectomy

Cancer Control

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 233-244

  Correa, José J ^a   Pow Sang, Julio M ^a  

^a H LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GELFOAM; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

CANCER CONTROL; CAUTERIZATION; ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PATIENT SELECTION; PREDICTION; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; ROBOTICS; SURGICAL ANATOMY; SURGICAL EQUIPMENT; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TUMOR VOLUME; URINE INCONTINENCE;

EID: 77958588112     PISSN: 10732748     EISSN: 15262359     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/107327481001700404     Document Type: Review

References (47)

1. Sriprasad S, Feneley MR, Thompson PM. History of prostate cancer treatment. Surg Oncol. 2009;18(3):185-191.
2. Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol. 1982;128(3):492-497.
3. Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Cancer control and quality of life following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy: results at 10 years. J Urol. 1994;152(5 Pt 2):1831-1836.
4. Alibhai SM, Gogov S. Radical prostatectomy for early prostate cancer improves long term survival. Cancer Treat Rev. 2005;31(8):640-643.
5. Grossfeld GD, Chang JJ, Broering JM, et al. Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate cancer recurrence and the use of secondary cancer treatment: data from the CaPSURE database. J Urol. 2000;163(4): 1171-1177; quiz 1295.
6. Yossepowitch O, Bjartell A, Eastham JA, et al. Positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy: outlining the problem and its long-term consequences. Eur Urol. 2009;55(1):87-99.
7. 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(6 Pt 1):2292-2295.
8. Schroeck FR, de Sousa CA, Kalman RA, et al. Trainees do not negatively impact the institutional learning curve for robotic prostatectomy as characterized by operative time, estimated blood loss, and positive surgical margin rate. Urology. 2008;71(4):597-601.
9. 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; discussion 871-872.
10. Kattan MW, Stapleton AM, Wheeler TM, et al. Evaluation of a nomogram used to predict the pathologic stage of clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 1997;79(3):528-537.
11. Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB, et al. Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Urology. 2007;69(6):1095-1101.
12. Graefen M, Haese A, Pichlmeier U, et al. A validated strategy for side specific prediction of organ confined prostate cancer: a tool to select for nerve sparing radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2001;165(3):857-863.
13. Shah O, Robbins DA, Melamed J, et al. The New York University nerve sparing algorithm decreases the rate of positive surgical margins following radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2003;169(6):2147-2152.
14. Ravery V, Schmid HP, Toublanc M, et al. Is the percentage of cancer in biopsy cores predictive of extracapsular disease in T1-T2 prostate carcinoma? Cancer. 1996;78(5):1079-1084.
15. Park EL, Dalkin B, Escobar C, et al. Site-specific positive margins at radical prostatectomy: assessing cancer-control benefits of wide excision of the neurovascular bundle on a side with cancer on biopsy. BJU Int. 2003;91(3):219-222.
16. Naya Y, Slaton JW, Troncoso P, et al. Tumor length and location of cancer on biopsy predict for side specific extraprostatic cancer extension. J Urol. 2004;171(3):1093-1097.
17. Kamat AM, Jacobsohn KM, Troncoso P, et al. Validation of criteria used to predict extraprostatic cancer extension: a tool for use in selecting patients for nerve sparing radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005;174(4 Pt 1): 1262-1265.
18. Tsuzuki T, Hernandez DJ, Aydin H, et al. Prediction of extraprostatic extension in the neurovascular bundle based on prostate needle biopsy pathology, serum prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination. J Urol. 2005;173(2):450-453.
19. Ohori M, Kattan MW, Koh H, et al. Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004;171(5):1844-1849; discussion 1849.
20. Zorn KC, Gofrit ON, Steinberg GP, et al. Planned nerve preservation to reduce positive surgical margins during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2008;22(6):1303-1309.
21. Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Edwards RA, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy: a technique to reduce pT2 positive margins. Urology. 2004;64(6):1224-1228.
22. 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.
23. Ong AM, Su LM, Varkarakis I, et al. Nerve sparing radical prostatectomy: effects of hemostatic energy sources on the recovery of cavernous nerve function in a canine model. J Urol. 2004;172(4 Pt 1):1318-1322.
24. Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Chou D, et al. Feasibility study for robotic radical prostatectomy cautery-free neurovascular bundle preservation. Urology. 2005; 65(5):994-997.
25. Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Borin J. Impact of cautery versus cauteryfree preservation of neurovascular bundles on early return of potency. J Endourol. 2006;20(8):586-589.
26. Tewari A, Peabody JO, Fischer M, et al. An operative and anatomic study to help in nerve sparing during laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2003;43(5):444-454.
27. Kiyoshima K, Yokomizo A, Yoshida T, et al. Anatomical features of periprostatic tissue and its surroundings: a histological analysis of 79 radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2004;34(8):463-468.
28. Kaul S, Bhandari A, Hemal A, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy with preservation of the prostatic fascia: a feasibility study. Urology. 2005; 66(6):1261-1265.
29. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Bhandari M, et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technical modifications in 2009. Eur Urol. 2009;56(1):89-96.
30. Shikanov S, Woo J, Al-Ahmadie H, et al. Extrafascial versus interfascial nerve-sparing technique for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: comparison of functional outcomes and positive surgical margins characteristics. Urology. 2009;74(3):611-616.
31. Walsh PC, Lepor H, Eggleston JC. Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations. Prostate. 1983;4(5):473-485.
32. Smither AR, Guralnick ML, Davis NB, et al. Quantifying the natural history of post-radical prostatectomy incontinence using objective pad test data. BMC Urol. 2007;7:2.
33. 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.
34. Litwin MS, Hays RD, Fink A, et al. Quality-of-life outcomes in men treated for localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1995;273(2):129-135.
35. Menon M, Tewari A; Vattikuti Institute Prostatectomy Team. 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.
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(3):354-360.
37. Rocco F, Carmignani L, Acquati P, et al. Restoration of posterior aspect of rhabdosphincter shortens continence time after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2006;175(6):2201-2206.
38. Rocco B, Gregori A, Stener S, et al. Posterior reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter allows a rapid recovery of continence after transperitoneal videolaparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2007;51(4):996-1003.
39. 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.
40. Nguyen MM, Kamoi K, Stein RJ, et al. Early continence outcomes of posterior musculofascial plate reconstruction during robotic and laparoscopic prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2008;101(9):1135-1139.
41. Tewari AK, 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 prostatectomy. Urology. 2007;69(4):726-731.
42. Nguyen L, Jhaveri J, Tewari A. Surgical technique to overcome anatomical shortcoming: balancing post-prostatectomy continence outcomes of urethral sphincter lengths on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol. 2008;179(5):1907-1911.
43. Tewari A, Jhaveri J, Rao S, et al. Total reconstruction of the vesicourethral junction. BJU Int. 2008;101(7):871-877.
44. Menon M, Muhletaler F, Campos M, et al. Assessment of early continence after reconstruction of the periprostatic tissues in patients undergoing computer assisted (robotic) prostatectomy: results of a 2 group parallel randomized controlled trial. J Urol. 2008;180(3):1018-1023
45. 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.
46. Pierorazio PM, Spencer BA, McCann TR, et al. Preoperative risk stratification predicts likelihood of concurrent PSA-free survival, continence, and potency (the trifecta analysis) after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 2007;70(4):717-722.
47. Shikanov SA, Zorn KC, Zagaja GP, et al. Trifecta outcomes after robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Urology. 2009;74(3):619-623.