Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Urological Oncology pp 253–275Cite as

Laparoscopy and Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopy in Uro-oncological Surgery

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1632 Accesses

Abstract

The field of urology has embraced minimally invasive surgical procedures in various phases, leaping from endoscopic to laparoscopic and then to robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. As these surgical techniques are applied to urological cancers, the oncological outcomes need to be compared with more traditional open surgery. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy as well as laparoscopic prostatectomy, robotic assisted or not, emulate the open surgical technique and have become an alternative to open surgery in many academic centers. The following review is designed to display the evolution, which has occurred in the last decades in the laparoscopic treatment of urologic malignancies as paradigmatic examples of an evolving process.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Velanovich V. Laparoscopic vs open surgery: a preliminary comparison of quality of life outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2000;14(1):16–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schuessler WW, Kavoussi LR, Claymann RV. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial case report. J Urol. 1992;147:246A.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology. 1997;50:854–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Curto F, Benijts J, Pansadoro A, et al. Nerve sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: our technique. Eur Urol. 2006;49:344–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Barret E. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: technical and early oncological assessment of 40 operations. Eur Urol. 1999;36:14–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris experience. J Urol. 2000;163:418–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jacob F, Salomon L, Hoznek A, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: preliminary results. Eur Urol. 2000;37:615–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bollens R, VandenBossche M, Rhoumeguere T, et al. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: results after 50 cases. Eur Urol. 2001;40:65–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rassweiler J, Sentker L, Oet S, et al. Heilbronn laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: technique and results after 100 cases. Eur Urol. 2001;40:54–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Türk I, Deger IS, Winkelmann B, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: technical aspects and experience with 125 cases. Eur Urol. 2001;40:46–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. De la Rosette JJMCH, Abbou CC, Rassweiler J, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a European virus with global potential. Arch Esp Urol. 2002;55:603–9.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Vögeli TA, Burchardt M, Fornara P, et al. Laparoscopic Working Group of the German Urological Association: current laparoscopic practice patterns in urology: results of a survey among urologist in Germany and Switzerland. Eur Urol. 2002;42:441–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Protzel C, Pechoel M, Richter M, et al. Radikale Prostatektomie und pelvine Lymphadenektomie – aktuelle Therapiestrategien in Deutschland – Ergebnisse einer deutschlandweiten Umfrage. Urologe A. 2004;43:S59.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rassweiler J, Stolzenburg J, Sulser T, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the experience of the German laparoscopic working group. Eur Urol. 2006;49:113–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Guazzoni G, Cestari A, Naspro R, et al. Intra- and peri-operative outcomes comparing radical retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: results from a prospective, randomised, single-surgeon study. Eur Urol. 2006;50:98–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nelson JB. Review debate: open radical prostatectomy vs. laparoscopic vs. robotic. Urol Oncol. 2007;25(6):490–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bollens R, Sandhu S, Roumeguere T, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the learning curve. Curr Opin Urol. 2005;15:1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Poulakis V, Dillenburg W, Moeckel M, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: prospective evaluation of the learning curve. Eur Urol. 2005;47:167–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Graefen M, Michl UHG, Heinzer H, et al. Indication, technique and outcome of retropubic nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. EAU Update Seri. 2005;3:77–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Vickers AJ, Savage CJ, Hruza M, et al. The surgical learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:475–80.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lepor H, Gregermann M, Crosby R, et al. Precise localization of the autonomic nerves from the pelvic plexus to the corpora cavernosa: a detailed anatomical study of the adult male pelvis. J Urol. 1985;133:207–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Su LM, Link E, Bhayani SB, et al. Nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: replicating the open surgical technique. Urology. 2004;64:123–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gill IS, Ukimura O, Rubinstein M, et al. Lateral pedicle control during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: refined technique. Urology. 2005;65:23–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tewari A, Peabody JO, Fischer M, et al. An operative and anatomic study to help in nerve-sparing during laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2003;43:444–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tewari A, Takenaka A, Mtui E, et al. The proximal neurovascular plate and trizonal neural architecture around the prostate gland: importance in the athermal robotic technique of nerve-sparing prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2007;98:314–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rocco F, Carmignani L, Acquati P, et al. Restoration of posterior aspect of rhabdosphincter shortens continence time after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2006;175:2201–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Van Velthoven RF, Ahlering TE, Peltier A, et al. Technique for laparoscopic running urethrovesical anastomosis: the single knot method. Urology. 2003;61:699–702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ong AM, Sul M, Varkarikis I, et al. Nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: effects of hemostatic energy sources and the recovery of cavernous nerve function in a canine model. J Urol. 2004;172:1318–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lepor H. Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Rev Urol. 2005;7(3):115–27.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Heer R, Raymond I, Jackson MJ, Soomro NA. A critical systematic review of recent clinical trials comparing open retropubic, laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Rev Recent Clin Trials. 2011;6(3):241–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tooher R, Swindle P, Woo H, et al. Review laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review of comparative studies. J Urol. 2006;175(6):2011–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Roumeguere T, Bollens R, Van den Bossche M, et al. Radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of oncological and functional results between open and laparoscopic approaches. World J Urol. 2003;20:360–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, et al. Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology. 2002;60:864–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M, et al. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int. 2003;92:205–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ficarra V, Cavalleri S, Novara G, et al. Evidence from robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2007;51:45–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rozet F, Jaffe J, Braud G, et al. A direct comparison of robotic assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single institution experience. J Urol. 2007;178:478–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, et al. Comparative effectiveness on minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2009;302:1557–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Patel HR, Linares A, Joseph JV. Robotic and laparoscopic surgery: cost and training. Surg Oncol. 2009;18:242–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Marberger M, Pugh RC, Auvert J, et al. Conservation surgery of renal carcinoma: the EIRSS experience. Br J Urol. 1981;53:528–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Van Poppel H, Becker F, Caddedu JA, et al. Treatment of localized renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2011;60(4):662–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Janetschek G, Daffner H, Peschel R, et al. Laparoscopic nephron sparing surgery for small renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 1998;159:1152–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Gill IS, Desai MM, Kaouk JH, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumor: duplicating open surgical techniques. J Urol. 2002;16:469–7.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Novick AC, Zincke H, Neves RJ, et al. Surgical enucleation for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 1986;135:235–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Abukora F, Nambirajan T, Albqami N, et al. Laparoscopic nephron sparing surgery: evolution in a decade. Eur Urol. 2005;47:488–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Baumert H, Ballaro A, Shah N, et al. Reducing war ischemia time during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a prospective comparison of two renal closure techniques. Eur Urol. 2007;54:1164–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Gill IS, Abreu SC, Desai MM, et al. Laparoscopic ice slush renal hypothermia for partial nephrectomy: the initial experience. J Urol. 2003;170:52–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Schoeppler GM, Klippstein E, Hell J, et al. Prolonged cold ischemia time for laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with a new cooling material: Freka-Gelice-a comparison of four cooling methods. J Endourol. 2010;24:1151–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Landman J, Venkatesh R, Lee D, et al. Renal hypothermia achieved by retrograde endoscopic cold saline perfusion: technique and initial clinical application. Urology. 2003;61:1023–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Janetschek G, Abdelmaksoud A, Bagheri F, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in cold ischemia: renal artery perfusion. J Urol. 2004;171:68–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Gill IS, Eisenberg MS, Aron M, et al. “Zero ischemia” partial nephrectomy: novel laparoscopic and robotic technique. Eur Urol. 2010;59:128–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Breda A, Stepanian SV, Liao J, et al. Positive margins in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in 855 cases: a multi-institutional survey from the United States and Europe. J Urol. 2007;178:47–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Permpongkosol S, Colombo Jr JR, Gill IS, et al. Positive surgical parenchymal margin after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: oncological outcomes. J Urol. 2006;176:2401–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Lane BR, Gill IS. 7-year oncological outcomes after laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2010;183:473–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Gill IS, Kamoi F, Aron M, et al. 800 Laparoscopic partial nephrectomies: a single surgeon series. J Urol. 2010;183:34–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Lattouf JB, Beri A, D’Ambros OF, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for hilar tumors: technique and results. Eur Urol. 2008;54:409–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Breda A, Finelli A, Janetschek G, et al. Complications of laparoscopic surgery for renal masses: prevention, management, and comparison with the open experience. Eur Urol. 2009;55:836–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Cho CL, Ho KL, Chu SS, et al. Robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison of perioperatives outcomes from a single institution. Hong Kong Med J. 2011;17:33–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Mir SA, Cadeddu JA, Sleeper JP, et al. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open partial nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2011;25:447–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Herr H, Dotan Z, Donat SM, Bajorin DF. Defining optimal therapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer. J Urol. 2007;177:437–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Rosario DJ, Becker M, Anderson JB. The changing pattern of mortality and morbidity from radical cystectomy. BJU Int. 2000;85:427–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Orviet MA, DeCastro GJ, Trinh QD, et al. Oncological and functional outcomes after robot-assisted radical cystectomy: critical review of current status. Urology. 2011;78(5):977–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Challacombe BJ, Bochner BH, Dasgupta P, et al. The role of laparoscopic and robotic cystectomy in the management of muscle invasive bladder cancer with special emphasis on cancer control and complications. Eur Urol. 2011;60(4):767–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Lee R, Chugtai B, Herman M, et al. Cost-analysis comparison of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy (RC) vs open RC. BJU Int. 2011;108:976–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Nix J, Smith A, Kurpad R, Nielsen ME, et al. Prospective randomised controlled trial of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: perioperative and pathologic results. BJU Int. 2010;57(2):196–201.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Smith AB, Raynor M, Amling CL, et al. Multi-institutional analysis of robotic radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: perioperative outcomes and complications in 227 patients. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012;22(1):17–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology and Andrology, Paracelsus Medical University, Hullner Hauptstrabe 48-50, Salzburg, Austria

    Lukas Lusuardi MD, FEBU & Günter Janetschek MD

Authors
  1. Lukas Lusuardi MD, FEBU
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Günter Janetschek MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Günter Janetschek MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Homerton University Hospital & Formerly St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London, United Kingdom

    Vinod H. Nargund

  2. Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA

    Derek Raghavan

  3. Radiation Oncology, Cedars Sinai Cancer Center, Los Angeles, California, USA

    Howard M. Sandler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lusuardi, L., Janetschek, G. (2015). Laparoscopy and Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopy in Uro-oncological Surgery. In: Nargund, V., Raghavan, D., Sandler, H. (eds) Urological Oncology. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-482-1_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-482-1_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-85729-481-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-85729-482-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation