Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The French Experience: A Comparison of the Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy at Montsouris

  • Chapter
Robotic Urologic Surgery

  • 680 Accesses

Abstract

The robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) has gained rapid acceptance in the urological community due to its documented advantages over standard laparoscopy radical prostatectomy (LRP)1,2 and open prostatectomy.3–5 This advantage has been most appreciated with regards to the learning curve due to enhanced three-dimensional visualization and instruments that allow six degrees of freedom of motion.6 These benefits to the surgeon must, however, translate to improved overall outcomes to justify the increased economic burden placed by the robot.7–9 In this chapter, we will review the current literature for the peri-operative morbidities of RALP. Due to our extensive experience with pure LRP at Montsouris,10,11 the minimally invasive standard to which the RALP must be compared, we will reference the current literature and our own series of both RALP and LRP to make the necessary comparisons for this developing technology.

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 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Joseph JV, Vicente I, Madeb R, Erturk E, Patel HR. Robot-assisted vs pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: are there any differences? BJU Int 2005; 96:39–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Tewari A. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: conventional and robotic. Urology 2005;66(suppl 5):101–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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;60:864–868.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robotassisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int 2003;92:205–210.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Webster TM, Herrell SD, Chang SS, et al. Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of postoperative pain. J Urol 2005; 174:912–914; discussion 914.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Lee D, Clayman RV. Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2003;170:1738–1741.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Scales CD Jr, Jones PJ, Eisenstein EL, Preminger GM, Albala DM. Local cost structures and the economics of robot assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2005;174:2323–2329.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Steers WD, LeBeau S, Cardella J, Fulmer B. Establishing a robotics program. Urol Clin North Am 2004;31:773–780, x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Gettman MT. The new economics of radical prostatectomy: cost comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot assisted techniques. J Urol 2004;172:1431–1435.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Guillonneau B, el-Fettouh H, Baumert H, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological evaluation after 1,000 cases a Montsouris Institute. J Urol 2003;169:1261–1266.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rozet F, Galiano M, Cathelineau X, et al. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective evaluation of 600 cases. J Urol 2005; 174:908–911.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cathelineau X, Rozet F, Vallancien G. Robotic radical prostatectomy: the European experience. Urol Clin North Am 2004;31:693–699, viii.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Patel VR, Tully AS, Holmes R, Lindsay J. Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting —the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol 2005;174:269–272.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Menon M, Tewari A. Robotic radical prostatectomy and the Vattikuti Urology Institute technique: an interim analysis of results and technical points. Urology 2003;61(suppl 1):15–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wolfram M, Brautigam R, Engl T, et al. Roboticassisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Frankfurt technique. World J Urol 2003;21: 128–132.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, Do M, et al. Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: oncological and functional results after 700 procedures. J Urol 2005;174:1271–1275; discussion 1275.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Brown JA, Rodin D, Lee B, Dahl DM. Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal approach to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: an assessment of 156 cases. Urology 2005;65:320–324.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Eden CG, King D, Kooiman GG, et al. Transperitoneal or extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does the approach matter? J Urol 2004;172:2218–2223.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ruiz L, Salomon L, Hoznek A, et al. Comparison of early oncologic results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach. Eur Urol 2004;46:50–54; discussion 54–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Roumeguere T, Bollens R, Vanden Bossche M, et al. Radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of oncological and functional results between open and laparoscopic approaches. World J Urol 2003;20:360–366.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rassweiler J, Seemann O, Schulze M, et al. Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. J Urol 2003;169:1689–1693.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gregori A, Simonato A, Lissiani A, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: perioperative complications in an initial and consecutive series of 80 cases. Eur Urol 2003;44:190–194; discussion 194.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hara I, Kawabata G, Miyake H, et al. Feasibility and usefulness of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Kobe University experience. Int J Urol 2002;9:635–640.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Turk I, Deger S, Winkelmann B, Schonberger B, Loening SA. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Technical aspects and experience with 125 cases. Eur Urol 2001;40:46–52; discussion 53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology 1997;50: 854–857.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Remzi M, Klingler HC, Tinzl MV, et al. Morbidity of laparoscopic extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal radical prostatectomy verus open retropubic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2005;48:83–89; discussion 89.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Salomon L, Levrel O, de la Taille A, et al. Radical prostatectomy by the retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic approach: 12 years of experience in one center. Eur Urol 2002;42:104–110; discussion 110–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Tewari A, et al. Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol 2002;168: 945–949.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Doublet JD, Baumert H, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 550 procedures. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2002;43:123–133.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School Cooper University Hospital, Camden, NJ, USA

    Justin D. Harmon DO

  2. Department of Urology, L’Institute Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France

    Francois Rozet MD, Xavier Cathelineau MD, Eric Barret MD & Guy Vallancien MD

Authors
  1. Justin D. Harmon DO
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francois Rozet MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xavier Cathelineau MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eric Barret MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Guy Vallancien MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Robotic and Computer-Assisted Surgery and for Robotic and Minimally Invasive Urologic Surgery, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA

    Vipul R. Patel MD (Director, Associate Clinical Professor of Surgery and Associate Professor of Bioinformatics) (Director, Associate Clinical Professor of Surgery and Associate Professor of Bioinformatics)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Harmon, J.D., Rozet, F., Cathelineau, X., Barret, E., Vallancien, G. (2007). The French Experience: A Comparison of the Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy at Montsouris. In: Patel, V.R. (eds) Robotic Urologic Surgery. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-704-6_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-704-6_15

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-84628-545-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-84628-704-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation