Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Functional and Oncological Outcomes of Robotic Radical Prostatectomy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery

  • 1009 Accesses

Abstract

Robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is an established procedure and has certain technical advantages over open and laparoscopic procedure. In this chapter we evaluate the oncological and functional efficacy of the procedure in terms of risk of positive surgical margins, rate of biochemical recurrence free survival, continence and potency. We also compare the outcomes of (RARP) with those of open and laparoscopic surgery in order to critically evaluate its clinical efficacy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Lin DW, Porter M, Montgomery B. Treatment and survival outcomes in young men diagnosed with prostate cancer: a population-based cohort study. Cancer. 2009;115(13):2863–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S, Ahlering TE, Carroll PR, Graefen M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):382–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Epstein JI, Amin M, Boccon-Gibod L, Egevad L, Humphrey PA, Mikuz G, et al. Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl. 2005;216:34–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Yossepowitch O, Bjartell A, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Guillonneau BD, Karakiewicz PI, et al. Positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy: outlining the problem and its long-term consequences. Eur Urol. 2009;55(1):87–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sooriakumaran P, Ploumidis A, Nyberg T, Olsson M, Akre O, Haendler L, et al. The impact of length and location of positive margins in predicting biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. BJU Int. 2015;115(1):106–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tan PH, Cheng L, Srigley JR, Griffiths D, Humphrey PA, van der Kwast TH, et al. International society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(1):48–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Maxeiner A, Magheli A, Jöhrens K, Kilic E, Braun TL, Kempkensteffen C, et al. Significant reduction in positive surgical margin rate after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by application of the modified surgical margin recommendations of the 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus. BJU Int. 2016;118(5):750–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sooriakumaran P, Srivastava A, Shariat SF, Stricker PD, Ahlering T, Eden CG, et al. A multinational, multi-institutional study comparing positive surgical margin rates among 22393 open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy patients. Eur Urol. 2014;66(3):450–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Thompson JE, Egger S, Bohm M, Haynes AM, Matthews J, Rasiah K, et al. Superior quality of life and improved surgical margins are achievable with robotic radical prostatectomy after a long learning curve: a prospective single-surgeon study of 1552 consecutive cases. Eur Urol. 2014;65(3):521–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Samadi DB, Muntner P, Nabizada-Pace F, Brajtbord JS, Carlucci J, Lavery HJ. Improvements in robot-assisted prostatectomy: the effect of surgeon experience and technical changes on oncologic and functional outcomes. J Endourol. 2010;24(7):1105–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Badani KK, Kaul S, Menon M. Evolution of robotic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 2766 procedures. Cancer. 2007;110(9):1951–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Trinh QD, Sun M, Kim SP, Sammon J, Kowalczyk KJ, Friedman AA, et al. The impact of hospital volume, residency, and fellowship training on perioperative outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2014;32(1):29.e13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ficarra V, Novara G, Secco S, D'Elia C, Boscolo-Berto R, Gardiman M, et al. Predictors of positive surgical margins after laparoscopic robot assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009;182(6):2682–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zilberman DE, Tsivian M, Yong D, Ferrandino MN, Albala DM. Does body mass index have an impact on the rate and location of positive surgical margins following robot assisted radical prostatectomy? Urol Oncol. 2012;30(6):790–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sundi D, Reese AC, Mettee LZ, Trock BJ, Pavlovich CP. Laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy outcomes in obese and extremely obese men. Urology. 2013;82(3):600–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Patel VR, Coelho RF, Rocco B, Orvieto M, Sivaraman A, Palmer KJ, et al. Positive surgical margins after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study. J Urol. 2011;186(2):511–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Allaparthi SB, Hoang T, Dhanani NN, Tuerk IA. Significance of prostate weight on peri and postoperative outcomes of robot assisted laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. Can J Urol. 2010;17(5):5383–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Huang AC, Kowalczyk KJ, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Yu HY, Plaster BA, et al. The impact of prostate size, median lobe, and prior benign prostatic hyperplasia intervention on robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: technique and outcomes. Eur Urol. 2011;59(4):595–603.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, Badani KK, Fumo M, Bhandari M, et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol. 2007;51(3):648–57. discussion 57-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Guru KA, Perlmutter AE, Sheldon MJ, Butt ZM, Zhang S, Tan W, et al. Apical margins after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: does technique matter? J Endourol. 2009;23(1):123–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wu SD, Meeks JJ, Cashy J, Perry KT, Nadler RB. Suture versus staple ligation of the dorsal venous complex during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010;106(3):385–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tewari AK, Srivastava A, Mudaliar K, Tan GY, Grover S, El Douaihy Y, et al. Anatomical retro-apical technique of synchronous (posterior and anterior) urethral transection: a novel approach for ameliorating apical margin positivity during robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010;106(9):1364–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Akand M, Erdogru T, Avci E, Ates M. Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective single surgeon randomized comparative study. Int J Urol. 2015;22(10):916–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Capello SA, Boczko J, Patel HR, Joseph JV. Randomized comparison of extraperitoneal and transperitoneal access for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2007;21(10):1199–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nyarangi-Dix JN, Radtke JP, Hadaschik B, Pahernik S, Hohenfellner M. Impact of complete bladder neck preservation on urinary continence, quality of life and surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a randomized, controlled, single blind trial. J Urol. 2013;189(3):891–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti urology institute experience. Urology. 2002;60(5):864–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M, Members of the VIPT. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int. 2003;92(3):205–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Silberstein JL, Su D, Glickman L, Kent M, Keren-Paz G, Vickers AJ, et al. A case-mix-adjusted comparison of early oncological outcomes of open and robotic prostatectomy performed by experienced high volume surgeons. BJU Int. 2013;111(2):206–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Robertson C, Close A, Fraser C, Gurung T, Jia X, Sharma P, et al. Relative effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2013;112(6):798–812.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. De Carlo F, Celestino F, Verri C, Masedu F, Liberati E, Di Stasi SM. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes: a systematic review. Urol Int. 2014;93(4):373–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, D'Amico AV, Dmochowski RR, et al. Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American urological association prostate guidelines for localized prostate cancer update panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol. 2007;177(2):540–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: Treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2011;59(4):572–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Mohler JL, Kantoff PW, Armstrong AJ, Bahnson RR, Cohen M, D'Amico AV, et al. Prostate cancer, version 2.2014. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2014;12(5):686–718.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, Chan DW, Pearson JD, Walsh PC. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 1999;281(17):1591–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Amling CL, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML, Slezak JM, Zincke H. Defining prostate specific antigen progression after radical prostatectomy: what is the most appropriate cut point? J Urol. 2001;165(4):1146–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Menon M, Bhandari M, Gupta N, Lane Z, Peabody JO, Rogers CG, et al. Biochemical recurrence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5-year follow-up. Eur Urol. 2010;58(6):838–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Shikanov S, Song J, Royce C, Al-Ahmadie H, Zorn K, Steinberg G, et al. Length of positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy as a predictor of biochemical recurrence. J Urol. 2009;182(1):139–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Sooriakumaran P, Haendler L, Nyberg T, Gronberg H, Nilsson A, Carlsson S, et al. Biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a European single-centre cohort with a minimum follow-up time of 5 years. Eur Urol. 2012;62(5):768–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Abdollah F, Dalela D, Sood A, Sammon J, Jeong W, Beyer B, et al. Intermediate-term cancer control outcomes in prostate cancer patients treated with robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional analysis. World J Urol. 2016;34(10):1357–66.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Abdollah F, Sood A, Sammon JD, Hsu L, Beyer B, Moschini M, et al. Long-term cancer control outcomes in patients with clinically high-risk prostate cancer treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: results from a multi-institutional study of 1100 patients. Eur Urol. 2015;68(3):497–505.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Zorn KC, Wille MA, Thong AE, Katz MH, Shikanov SA, Razmaria A, et al. Continued improvement of perioperative, pathological and continence outcomes during 700 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies. Can J Urol. 2009;16(4):4742–9. discussion 9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Moskovic DJ, Lavery HJ, Rehman J, Nabizada-Pace F, Brajtbord J, Samadi DB. High body mass index does not affect outcomes following robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Can J Urol. 2010;17(4):5291–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Ginzburg S, Hu F, Staff I, Tortora J, Champagne A, Salner A, et al. Does prior abdominal surgery influence outcomes or complications of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy? Urology. 2010;76(5):1125–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Barocas DA, Salem S, Kordan Y, Herrell SD, Chang SS, Clark PE, et al. Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: comparison of short-term biochemical recurrence-free survival. J Urol. 2010;183(3):990–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Magheli A, Gonzalgo ML, Su LM, Guzzo TJ, Netto G, Humphreys EB, et al. Impact of surgical technique (open vs laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted) on pathological and biochemical outcomes following radical prostatectomy: an analysis using propensity score matching. BJU Int. 2011;107(12):1956–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ploussard G, de la Taille A, Moulin M, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Abbou CC, et al. Comparisons of the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes after robot-assisted versus pure extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2014;65(3):610–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Abrams P, Andersson KE, Birder L, Brubaker L, Cardozo L, Chapple C, et al. Fourth international consultation on incontinence recommendations of the international scientific committee: evaluation and treatment of urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and fecal incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29(1):213–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Tsui JF, Shah MB, Weinberger JM, Ghanaat M, Weiss JP, Purohit RS, et al. Pad count is a poor measure of the severity of urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2013;190(5):1787–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Porena M, Mearini E, Mearini L, Vianello A, Giannantoni A. Voiding dysfunction after radical retropubic prostatectomy: more than external urethral sphincter deficiency. Eur Urol. 2007;52(1):38–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kadono Y, Ueno S, Iwamoto D, Takezawa Y, Nohara T, Izumi K, et al. Chronological urodynamic evaluation of changing bladder and urethral functions after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2015;85(6):1441–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Chao R, Mayo ME. Incontinence after radical prostatectomy: detrusor or sphincter causes. J Urol. 1995;154(1):16–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Mendiola FP, Zorn KC, Mikhail AA, Lin S, Orvieto MA, Zagaja GP, et al. Urinary and sexual function outcomes among different age groups after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2008;22(3):519–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Link BA, Nelson R, Josephson DY, Yoshida JS, Crocitto LE, Kawachi MH, et al. The impact of prostate gland weight in robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2008;180(3):928–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Boczko J, Erturk E, Golijanin D, Madeb R, Patel H, Joseph JV. Impact of prostate size in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2007;21(2):184–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Labanaris AP, Zugor V, Witt JH. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with a pathologic prostate specimen weight >/=100 grams versus </=50 grams: surgical, oncologic and short-term functional outcomes. Urol Int. 2013;90(1):24–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Wiltz AL, Shikanov S, Eggener SE, Katz MH, Thong AE, Steinberg GD, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy in overweight and obese patients: oncological and validated-functional outcomes. Urology. 2009;73(2):316–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Kumar A, Samavedi S, Bates AS, Coelho RF, Rocco B, Palmer K, et al. Continence outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with adverse urinary continence risk factors. BJU Int. 2015;116(5):764–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Sacco E, Prayer-Galetti T, Pinto F, Fracalanza S, Betto G, Pagano F, et al. Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: incidence by definition, risk factors and temporal trend in a large series with a long-term follow-up. BJU Int. 2006;97(6):1234–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Kaul S, Savera A, Badani K, Fumo M, Bhandari A, Menon M. Functional outcomes and oncological efficacy of Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy with Veil of Aphrodite nerve-sparing: an analysis of 154 consecutive patients. BJU Int. 2006;97(3):467–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Kim JJ, Ha YS, Kim JH, Jeon SS, Lee DH, Kim WJ, et al. Independent predictors of recovery of continence 3 months after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2012;26(10):1290–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Barnoiu OS, Garcia Galisteo E, Baron Lopez F, Vozmediano Chicharro R, Soler Martinez J, Del Rosal Samaniego JM, et al. Prospective urodynamic model for prediction of urinary incontinence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urol Int. 2014;92(3):306–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Lee Z, Sehgal SS, Graves RV, Su YK, Llukani E, Monahan K, et al. Functional and oncologic outcomes of graded bladder neck preservation during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2014;28(1):48–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Freire MP, Weinberg AC, Lei Y, Soukup JR, Lipsitz SR, Prasad SM, et al. Anatomic bladder neck preservation during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of technique and outcomes. Eur Urol. 2009;56(6):972–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Poore RE, McCullough DL, Jarow JP. Puboprostatic ligament sparing improves urinary continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 1998;51(1):67–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Kwon SY, Lee JN, Kim HT, Kim TH, Kim BW, Choi GS, et al. Endopelvic fascia preservation during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does it affect urinary incontinence? Scand J Urol. 2014;48(6):506–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Takenaka A, Tewari AK, Leung RA, Bigelow K, El-Tabey N, Murakami G, et al. Preservation of the puboprostatic collar and puboperineoplasty for early recovery of urinary continence after robotic prostatectomy: anatomic basis and preliminary outcomes. Eur Urol. 2007;51(2):433–40. discussion 40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Finley DS, Chang A, Morales B, Osann K, Skarecky D, Ahlering T. Impact of regional hypothermia on urinary continence and potency after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2010;24(7):1111–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Rocco F, Carmignani L, Acquati P, Gadda F, Dell'Orto P, Rocco B, et al. Restoration of posterior aspect of rhabdosphincter shortens continence time after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2006;175(6):2201–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Orvieto MA, Sivaraman A, Palmer KJ, Coughlin G, et al. Influence of modified posterior reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter on early recovery of continence and anastomotic leakage rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2011;59(1):72–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Sammon JD, Muhletaler F, Peabody JO, Diaz-Insua M, Satyanaryana R, Menon M. Long-term functional urinary outcomes comparing single- vs double-layer urethrovesical anastomosis: two-year follow-up of a two-group parallel randomized controlled trial. Urology. 2010;76(5):1102–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Menon M, Muhletaler F, Campos M, Peabody JO. 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):1018–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Haga N, Ogawa S, Yabe M, Akaihata H, Hata J, Sato Y, et al. Factors contributing to early recovery of urinary continence analyzed by pre- and postoperative pelvic anatomical features at robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2015;29(6):683–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Polland AR, Graversen JA, Mues AC, Badani KK. Polyglyconate unidirectional barbed suture for posterior reconstruction and anastomosis during robot-assisted prostatectomy: effect on procedure time, efficacy, and minimum 6-month follow-up. J Endourol. 2011;25(9):1493–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Galfano A, Di Trapani D, Sozzi F, Strada E, Petralia G, Bramerio M, et al. Beyond the learning curve of the Retzius-sparing approach for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncologic and functional results of the first 200 patients with >/= 1 year of follow-up. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):974–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Asimakopoulos AD, Annino F, D'Orazio A, Pereira CF, Mugnier C, Hoepffner JL, et al. Complete periprostatic anatomy preservation during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP): the new pubovesical complex-sparing technique. Eur Urol. 2010;58(3):407–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Di Pierro GB, Baumeister P, Stucki P, Beatrice J, Danuser H, Mattei A. A prospective trial comparing consecutive series of open retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a centre with a limited caseload. Eur Urol. 2011;59(1):1–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Asimakopoulos AD, Pereira Fraga CT, Annino F, Pasqualetti P, Calado AA, Mugnier C. Randomized comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med. 2011;8(5):1503–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol. 1982;128(3):492–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Tewari A, Peabody JO, Fischer M, Sarle R, Vallancien G, Delmas V, et al. An operative and anatomic study to help in nerve sparing during laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2003;43(5):444–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Tewari AK, Srivastava A, Huang MW, Robinson BD, Shevchuk MM, Durand M, et al. Anatomical grades of nerve sparing: a risk-stratified approach to neural-hammock sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). BJU Int. 2011;108(6 Pt 2):984–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Costello AJ, Brooks M, Cole OJ. Anatomical studies of the neurovascular bundle and cavernosal nerves. BJU Int. 2004;94(7):1071–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Shikanov SA, Zorn KC, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL. Trifecta outcomes after robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Urology. 2009;74(3):619–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Ostby-Deglum M, Axcrona K, Brennhovd B, Dahl AA. Ability to reach orgasm in patients with prostate cancer treated with robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Urology. 2016;92:38–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, Costello A, Eastham JA, Graefen M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):418–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Briganti A, Gallina A, Suardi N, Capitanio U, Tutolo M, Bianchi M, et al. Predicting erectile function recovery after bilateral nerve sparing radical prostatectomy: a proposal of a novel preoperative risk stratification. J Sex Med. 2010;7(7):2521–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Novara G, Ficarra V, D'Elia C, Secco S, De Gobbi A, Cavalleri S, et al. Preoperative criteria to select patients for bilateral nerve-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med. 2010;7(2 Pt 1):839–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Uffort EE, Jensen JC. Impact of obesity on early erectile function recovery after robotic radical prostatectomy. JSLS. 2011;15(1):32–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Kwon YS, Leapman M, McBride RB, Hobbs AR, Collingwood SA, Stensland KD, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in men with metabolic syndrome. Urol Oncol. 2014;32(1):40.e9–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Menon M, Kaul S, Bhandari A, Shrivastava A, Tewari A, Hemal A. Potency following robotic radical prostatectomy: a questionnaire based analysis of outcomes after conventional nerve sparing and prostatic fascia sparing techniques. J Urol. 2005;174(6):2291–6. discussion 6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Bhandari M, Satyanarayana R, Siva S, Agarwal PK. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technical modifications in 2009. Eur Urol. 2009;56(1):89–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Borin J. Impact of cautery versus cautery-free preservation of neurovascular bundles on early return of potency. J Endourol. 2006;20(8):586–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Fagin R. Da Vinci prostatectomy: athermal nerve sparing and effect of the technique on erectile recovery and negative margins. J Robot Surg. 2007;1(2):139–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Kowalczyk KJ, Huang AC, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Yu HY, Ulmer WD, et al. Stepwise approach for nerve sparing without countertraction during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: technique and outcomes. Eur Urol. 2011;60(3):536–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Shikanov S, Desai V, Razmaria A, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL. Robotic radical prostatectomy for elderly patients: probability of achieving continence and potency 1 year after surgery. J Urol. 2010;183(5):1803–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Kim SC, Song C, Kim W, Kang T, Park J, Jeong IG, et al. Factors determining functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy: robot-assisted versus retropubic. Eur Urol. 2011;60(3):413–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Park JW, Won Lee H, Kim W, Jeong BC, Jeon SS, Lee HM, et al. Comparative assessment of a single surgeon's series of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: conventional versus robot-assisted. J Endourol. 2011;25(4):597–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J, Sandler HM, Northouse L, Hembroff L, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(12):1250–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Finkelstein J, Eckersberger E, Sadri H, Taneja SS, Lepor H, Djavan B. Open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: the European and US experience. Rev Urol. 2010;12(1):35–43.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Novara G, Ficarra V, D'Elia C, Secco S, Cavalleri S, Artibani W. Trifecta outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2011;107(1):100–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Patel VR, Sivaraman A, Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Palmer KJ, Orvieto MA, et al. Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2011;59(5):702–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Outcomes Research, Analytics and Evaluation, Henry Ford Hospital, Vattikuti Institute of Urology, Detroit, MI, USA

    Tarun Jindal & Firas Abdollah

  2. Vattikuti Urology Institute and VUI Center for Outcomes Research Analytics and Evaluation, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA

    Deepansh Dalela

  3. Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA

    Mani Menon

Authors
  1. Tarun Jindal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Firas Abdollah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Deepansh Dalela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mani Menon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

    Ashok K. Hemal

  2. Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA

    Mani Menon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Jindal, T., Abdollah, F., Dalela, D., Menon, M. (2018). Functional and Oncological Outcomes of Robotic Radical Prostatectomy. In: Hemal, A., Menon, M. (eds) Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20645-5_29

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20645-5_29

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20644-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20645-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation