Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Four Cases

The role of the da Vinci™ robot is being defined in minimally invasive urologic surgery. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (rLRP) has emerged as a feasible treatment option for patients with organ-confined prostate cancer. We performed the first four rLRPs on four prostate cancer patients in the Republic of Korea. This is a report of its techniques and outcomes. In all four cases, the surgery was successfully completed with a mean operative time of 392.5 minutes. The mean estimated blood loss was 312.5mL, and catheterization lasted 14 to 21 days. There were no major intraoperative or postoperative complications. The mean hospital stay was 11 days. The rLRP is a safe and feasible approach. It will become one of the standard options for the management of localized prostate cancer.

[1]  Sung Yul Park,et al.  Influence of prostate weight, obesity and height on surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in Korean men , 2007, Journal of robotic surgery.

[2]  M. Menon,et al.  Robotic radical prostatectomy with preservation of the prostatic fascia: a feasibility study. , 2005, Urology.

[3]  M. Menon,et al.  Potency following robotic radical prostatectomy: a questionnaire based analysis of outcomes after conventional nerve sparing and prostatic fascia sparing techniques. , 2005, The Journal of urology.

[4]  M. Menon,et al.  The technique of apical dissection of the prostate and urethrovesical anastomosis in robotic radical prostatectomy , 2004, BJU international.

[5]  T. Ahlering,et al.  Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[6]  M. Menon,et al.  Vattikuti Institute Prostatectomy: a single-team experience of 100 cases. , 2003, Journal of endourology.

[7]  Ralph V Clayman,et al.  Robotic revelation: laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by a nonlaparoscopic surgeon. , 2003, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[8]  M. Menon,et al.  A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot‐assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution , 2003, BJU international.

[9]  Ashutosh Tewari,et al.  An operative and anatomic study to help in nerve sparing during laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy. , 2003, European urology.

[10]  G Vallancien,et al.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological evaluation after 1,000 cases a Montsouris Institute. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[11]  M. Menon,et al.  Robotic radical retropubic prostatectomy , 2003, BJU International.

[12]  Benjamin R. Lee,et al.  Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? , 2002, Urology.

[13]  J. Rassweiler,et al.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique: an analysis of the first 180 cases. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[14]  A. Hemal,et al.  Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopy. , 2001, Journal of endourology.

[15]  C. Zippe,et al.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: technique. , 2001, The Urologic clinics of North America.

[16]  C. Abbou,et al.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: preliminary results. , 2000, Urology.

[17]  P. Walsh.  Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique. , 1998, The Journal of urology.

[18]  L R Kavoussi,et al.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. , 1997, Urology.