Advertisement

Functional and Oncological Outcomes of Robotic Radical Prostatectomy

  • Tarun Jindal
  • Firas Abdollah
  • Deepansh Dalela
  • Mani Menon
Chapter

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.

Keywords

Radical prostatectomy Robotic surgery Continence Potency Patient outcomes 

References

  1. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Badani KK, Kaul S, Menon M. Evolution of robotic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 2766 procedures. Cancer. 2007;110(9):1951–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 57-8PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 9PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Chao R, Mayo ME. Incontinence after radical prostatectomy: detrusor or sphincter causes. J Urol. 1995;154(1):16–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Poore RE, McCullough DL, Jarow JP. Puboprostatic ligament sparing improves urinary continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 1998;51(1):67–72.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 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 40PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol. 1982;128(3):492–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  79. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  80. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Costello AJ, Brooks M, Cole OJ. Anatomical studies of the neurovascular bundle and cavernosal nerves. BJU Int. 2004;94(7):1071–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Shikanov SA, Zorn KC, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL. Trifecta outcomes after robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Urology. 2009;74(3):619–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  85. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  86. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Uffort EE, Jensen JC. Impact of obesity on early erectile function recovery after robotic radical prostatectomy. JSLS. 2011;15(1):32–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 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 6PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  90. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  91. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  92. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  94. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  95. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  96. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  97. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  98. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  99. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  100. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  101. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tarun Jindal
    • 1
  • Firas Abdollah
    • 1
  • Deepansh Dalela
    • 2
  • Mani Menon
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Outcomes Research, Analytics and EvaluationHenry Ford Hospital, Vattikuti Institute of UrologyDetroitUSA
  2. 2.Vattikuti Urology Institute and VUI Center for Outcomes Research Analytics and EvaluationHenry Ford HospitalDetroitUSA
  3. 3.Vattikuti Urology InstituteHenry Ford Health SystemDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations