Current Urology Reports

, 19:71 | Cite as

Comparison of Robot-Assisted Versus Open Simple Prostatectomy for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

  • Ankur A. Shah
  • Jeffrey C. Gahan
  • Igor SorokinEmail author
Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (K McVary, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia


Purpose of Review

Recent advancements in minimally invasive approaches for prostate surgery have provided numerous options for surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). In the setting of a large prostate, an open simple prostatectomy was previously considered the gold standard surgical treatment. However, the recently updated American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines on surgical management of BPH now consider both open and minimally invasive approaches to simple prostatectomy viable alternatives for treating large glands, depending on expertise with the techniques. The purpose of our review is to discuss the minimally invasive robot-assisted approach and compare it to the classic open approach to simple prostatectomy.

Recent Findings

Despite longer operative times, the robotic approach is associated with shorter hospital stay and lower morbidity profile. The morbidity of an open approach remains significant. Blood transfusions are 3–4 times as likely compared to a robotic approach and major complications are twice as likely. Consistent with previous literature, our review shows functional outcome improvements like flow rate and symptom score to be comparable between the robotic and open approach. The amount of adenoma resected and PSA decline is also similar among robotic and open cases.


Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy is a safe and effective procedure for BPH secondary to a large prostate gland. Appropriately, it is no longer deemed “investigational” by the latest AUA guidelines on BPH and recommended as an alternative to the open approach.


RASP OSP Simple prostatectomy Robotic simple prostatectomy BPH 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Ankur A. Shah, Jeffrey C. Gahan, and Igor Sorokin each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major Importance

  1. 1.
    Irwin DE, Kopp ZS, Agatep B, et al. Worldwide prevalence estimates of lower urinary tract symptoms, overactive bladder, urinary incontinence and bladder outlet obstruction. BJU Int. 2011;108:1132.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McVary KT, Roehrborn CG, Avins AL, et al. Update on AUA guideline on the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol. 2011;185:1793.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    •• Foster, H. E., Barry, M. J., Dahm, P. et al.: surgical management of lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia: AUA guideline. J Urol, 2018. Most recent updated surgical guidelines by the AUA.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Suer E, Gokce I, Yaman O, et al. Open prostatectomy is still a valid option for large prostates: a high-volume, single-center experience. Urology. 2008;72:90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Varkarakis I, Kyriakakis Z, Delis A, et al. Long-term results of open transvesical prostatectomy from a contemporary series of patients. Urology. 2004;64:306.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parsons JK, Rangarajan SS, Palazzi K, et al. A national, comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes of open and minimally invasive simple prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2015;29:919.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pariser JJ, Pearce SM, Patel SG, et al. National Trends of simple prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia with an analysis of risk factors for adverse perioperative outcomes. Urology. 2015;86:721.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McCullough TC, Heldwein FL, Soon SJ, et al. Laparoscopic versus open simple prostatectomy: an evaluation of morbidity. J Endourol. 2009;23:129.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baumert H, Ballaro A, Dugardin F, et al. Laparoscopic versus open simple prostatectomy: a comparative study. J Urol. 2006;175:1691.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leslie S, Abreu AL, Chopra S, et al. Transvesical robotic simple prostatectomy: initial clinical experience. Eur Urol. 2014;66:321.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    • Sorokin I, Sundaram V, Singla N, et al. Robot-assisted versus open simple prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia in large glands: a propensity score-matched comparison of perioperative and short-term outcomes. J Endourol. 2017;31:1164. Largest comparative series between robotic and open simple prostatectomy. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Umari, P., Fossati, N., Gandaglia, G. et al.: Robotic assisted simple prostatectomy versus holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for lower urinary tract symptoms in patients with large volume prostate (greater than 100 ml): a comparative analysis from a high volume center. J Urol, 2016.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang MW, El Tayeb MM, Borofsky MS, et al. Comparison of perioperative outcomes between holmium laser enucleation of the prostate and robot-assisted simple prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2017;31:847.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Freyer PJ. A new method of performing perineal prostatectomy. Br Med J. 1900;1:698.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Millin T. Retropubic prostatectomy; a new extravesical technique; report of 20 cases. Lancet. 1945;2:693.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sotelo R, Clavijo R, Carmona O, et al. Robotic simple prostatectomy. J Urol. 2008;179:513.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cockrell R, Bonzo J, Lee D. Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2018;32:S33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Castillo O, Vidal-Mora I, Rodriguez-Carlin A, et al. Modified urethrovesical anastomosis during robot-assisted simple prostatectomy: technique and results. Prostate Int. 2016;4:61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    John H, Bucher C, Engel N, et al. Preperitoneal robotic prostate adenomectomy. Urology. 2009;73:811.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stolzenburg JU, Kallidonis P, Qazi H, et al. Extraperitoneal approach for robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy. Urology. 2014;84:1099.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lucca I, Shariat SF, Hofbauer SL, et al. Outcomes of minimally invasive simple prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol. 2015;33:563.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hoy NY, Van Zyl S, St Martin BA. Initial Canadian experience with robotic simple prostatectomy: case series and literature review. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015;9:E626.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pavan N, Zargar H, Sanchez-Salas R, et al. Robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopy for simple prostatectomy: multicenter comparative outcomes. Urology. 2016;91:104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Autorino R, Zargar H, Mariano MB, et al. Perioperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic simple prostatectomy: a European-American multi-institutional analysis. Eur Urol. 2015;68:86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pokorny M, Novara G, Geurts N, et al. Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic enlargement: surgical technique and outcomes in a high-volume robotic centre. Eur Urol. 2015;68:451.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Misrai V, Pasquie M, Bordier B, et al. Comparison between open simple prostatectomy and green laser enucleation of the prostate for treating large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a single-centre experience. World J Urol. 2018;36:793.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Demir A, Gunseren KO, Kordan Y, et al. Open vs laparoscopic simple prostatectomy: a comparison of initial outcomes and cost. J Endourol. 2016;30:884.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ou R, You M, Tang P, et al. A randomized trial of transvesical prostatectomy versus transurethral resection of the prostate for prostate greater than 80 mL. Urology. 2010;76:958.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alivizatos G, Skolarikos A, Chalikopoulos D, et al. Transurethral photoselective vaporization versus transvesical open enucleation for prostatic adenomas >80ml: 12-mo results of a randomized prospective study. Eur Urol. 2008;54:427.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kuntz RM, Lehrich K. Transurethral holmium laser enucleation versus transvesical open enucleation for prostate adenoma greater than 100 gm.:: a randomized prospective trial of 120 patients. J Urol. 2002;168:1465.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Carneiro A, Sakuramoto P, Wroclawski ML, et al. Open suprapubic versus retropubic prostatectomy in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia during resident's learning curve: a randomized controlled trial. Int Braz J Urol. 2016;42:284.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sutherland DE, Perez DS, Weeks DC. Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy for severe benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Endourol. 2011;25:641.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Matei DV, Brescia A, Mazzoleni F, et al. Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP): does it make sense? BJU Int. 2012;110:E972.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ludwig WW, Gorin MA, Allaf ME. Reducing the cost of robotic partial nephrectomy through innovative instrument use. Eur Urol. 2015;67:594.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cockrell R, Lee DI. Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy: expanding on an established operative approach. Curr Urol Rep. 2017;18:37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sorokin I, Johnson BA, Singla N, et al. Evaluating the learning curve for robotic assisted simple prostatectomy: scientific program of 35th world congress of endourology. J Endourol. 2017;31:A357.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ankur A. Shah
    • 1
  • Jeffrey C. Gahan
    • 2
  • Igor Sorokin
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Division of UrologyAlbany Medical CenterAlbanyUSA
  2. 2.Department of UrologyUT Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA
  3. 3.Department of UrologyUniversity of MassachusettsWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations