Robotically Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: A Brief Review of Outcomes

Over 75,000 radical prostatectomies were performed in the USA last year for the treatment of prostate cancer. Most of these were performed by radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP), the gold standard for treatment of this disease. However, the quest for increased efficacy and decreased morbidity is having as profound an impact on the treatment of prostate cancer as in any other area of medicine. There are two unique factors at work in the search for decreased morbidity in prostate cancer treatment. The first is the high prevalence, since prostate cancer is diagnosed in 1 in 6 men during their lifetime. The second involves the well-known side effects of incontinence and erectile dysfunction, whose impact is often more crippling psychologically than physically. The original minimally invasive treatment for prostate cancer, interstitial brachytherapy, has now been joined by novel technologies such as high-intensity focused ultrasound, cryotherapy, and, most recently, by another form of radiation delivery, Cyberknife. These technologies will likely all find a place in our armamentarium, but even the most seasoned of these treatments (brachytherapy) still has limitations that prevent it from replacing surgical removal of the prostate. For these reasons, both patients and urologic surgeons have continued to seek out less invasive surgical options. In 1991, Clayman et al performed the first laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (1). In the USA, enthusiasm over this procedure was mitigated by prolonged operative times, a steep learning curve, and a failure to demonstrate major advantages over open surgery. In Europe, however, the experience continued, and investigators began to present laparoscopic prostatectomy outcomes that were comparable to those of open surgery with roughly equivalent operative times (2, 3). However, the procedure never gained widespread acceptance, likely due to the technical challenges of traditional laparoscopic instrumentation. In 2001, the Henry Ford Hospital described the first robotic prostatectomy (4), and shortly thereafter surgeons there published short-term outcome data comparing RRP with robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) (5, 6). Since that time the urology community has seen unparalleled growth in this procedure. Roughly 8500 RALP procedures were performed in 2004 and 18,000 in 2005; it has been estimated that 35% of all prostatectomies performed in 2007 will be performed robotically.

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

[2]  M. Soloway,et al.  Incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. , 1998, The Journal of urology.

[3]  P. Walsh,et al.  Patient-reported urinary continence and sexual function after anatomic radical prostatectomy. , 2000, Urology.

[4]  B. Guillonneau,et al.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris experience. , 2000, The Journal of urology.

[5]  Michael N. Ferrandino,et al.  Intraoperative and postoperative complications of radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1,000 cases. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[6]  Guy Vallancien,et al.  Robotically Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Feasibility Study in Men , 2001, European Urology.

[7]  G. Nuttall,et al.  Radical retropubic prostatectomy and blood transfusion. , 2002, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[8]  Ashutosh Tewari,et al.  Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. , 2002, Urology.

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

[10]  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.

[11]  Dogu Teber,et al.  Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[12]  M. Menon,et al.  Robotic radical prostatectomy and the Vattikuti Urology Institute technique: an interim analysis of results and technical points. , 2003, Urology.

[13]  T. Ahlering,et al.  Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon's outcomes. , 2004, Urology.

[14]  Vipul R Patel,et al.  Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting--the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. , 2005, The Journal of urology.

[15]  S Duke Herrell,et al.  Intraoperative blood loss and transfusion requirements for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy. , 2005, Urology.

[16]  E. Castle,et al.  Positive surgical margins in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: impact of learning curve on oncologic outcomes. , 2006, European urology.