Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: The Evolution of Technique

  • Seock Hwan Choi
  • Tae Gyun KwonEmail author


Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a gold standard treatment of localized prostate cancer. Since the introduction of da Vinci robot, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has been replacing open and laparoscopic RP rapidly. RARP surgical techniques have been evolved by many surgeons and it is still ongoing. These surgical techniques are focused on improving functional outcomes after the surgery. The functional outcomes including preservation of continence and erectile function is vital to the patients especially who are young and sexually active. As a result, the evolution of techniques regarding continence and erectile function are improving the quality of life of prostate cancer survivor.


Robot Radical prostatectomy Technique 



To Dr. Kwon and Dr. Rha for permitting to publish surgical pictures of their own.


  1. Abbou CC, Hoznek A, Salomon L, Lobontiu A, Saint F, Cicco A, et al. Remote laparoscopic radical prostatectomy carried out with a robot. Report of a case. Prog Urol. 2000;10(4):520–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Agarwal PK, Sammon J, Bhandari A, Dabaja A, Diaz M, Dusik-Fenton S, et al. Safety profile of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a standardized report of complications in 3317 patients. Eur Urol. 2011;59(5):684–98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Asimakopoulos AD, Miano R, Galfano A, Bocciardi AM, Vespasiani G, Spera E, et al. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: critical appraisal of the anatomic landmarks for a complete intrafascial approach. Clin Anat. 2015;28(7):896–902.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Costello AJ, Brooks M, Cole OJ. Anatomical studies of the neurovascular bundle and cavernosal nerves. BJU Int. 2004;94(7):1071–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Curto F, Benijts J, Pansadoro A, Barmoshe S, Hoepffner JL, Mugnier C, et al. Nerve sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: our technique. Eur Urol. 2006;49(2):344–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cusumano S, Annino F, Selas ER, Hanna S, Piechaud T, Gaston R. Feasibility, technique, and principles of tension- and energy-free laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with lateral intrafascial dissection of the neurovascular bundles with the use of a high-definition optical device. J Endourol. 2008;22(9):1981–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):405–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Galfano A, Ascione A, Grimaldi S, Petralia G, Strada E, Bocciardi AM. A new anatomic approach for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a feasibility study for completely intrafascial surgery. Eur Urol. 2010;58(3):457–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Jeong W, Araki M, Park SY, Lee YH, Kumon H, Hong SJ, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in the Asian population: modified port configuration and ultradissection. Int J Urol. 2010;17(3):297–300.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Jeong W, Kumar R, Menon M. Past, present and future of urological robotic surgery. Invest Clin Urol. 2016;57(2):75–83.Google Scholar
  12. Kaul S, Bhandari A, Hemal A, Savera A, Shrivastava A, Menon M. Robotic radical prostatectomy with preservation of the prostatic fascia: a feasibility study. Urology. 2005;66(6):1261–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kaul S, Sammon J, Bhandari A, Peabody J, Rogers CG, Menon M. A novel method of urethrovesical anastomosis during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using a unidirectional barbed wound closure device: feasibility study and early outcomes in 51 patients. J Endourol. 2010;24(11):1789–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kiyoshima K, Yokomizo A, Yoshida T, Tomita K, Yonemasu H, Nakamura M, et al. Anatomical features of periprostatic tissue and its surroundings: a histological analysis of 79 radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2004;34(8):463–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Laviana AA, Williams SB, King ED, Chuang RJ, Hu JC. Robot assisted radical prostatectomy: the new standard? Eur Urol. 2015;67(1):47–53.Google Scholar
  17. Lim SK, Kim KH, Shin TY, Han WK, Chung BH, Hong SJ, et al. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: combining the best of retropubic and perineal approaches. BJU Int. 2014;114(2):236–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ma X, Tang K, Yang C, Wu G, Xu N, Wang M, et al. Bladder neck preservation improves time to continence after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2016;7(41):67463–75.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Orvieto MA, Patel VR. Evolution of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Scand J Surg. 2009;98(2):76–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Rocco B, Gregori A, Stener S, Santoro L, Bozzola A, Galli S, et al. Posterior reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter allows a rapid recovery of continence after transperitoneal videolaparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2007;51(4):996–1003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, Tannapfel A, Liatsikos EN. Intrafascial nerve-sparing endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2006;67(1):17–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Walsh PC. Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique. J Urol. 1998;160(6 Pt 2):2418–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol. 1982;128(3):492–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Walsh PC, Marschke P, Ricker D, Burnett AL. Patient-reported urinary continence and sexual function after anatomic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2000;55(1):58–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Yanagida T, Koguchi T, Hata J, Yabe M, Sato Y, Akaihata H, et al. Current techniques to improve outcomes for early return of urinary continence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Fukushima J Med Sci. 2014;60(1):1–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Young HH. VIII. Conservative perineal prostatectomy: the results of two years’ experience and report of seventy-five cases. Ann Surg. 1905;41(4):549–57.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urology, School of MedicineKyungpook National UniversityDaeguRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of UrologyKyungpook National University Medical CenterDaeguRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of UrologyKyungpook National University HospitalDaeguRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations