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

  • Justin D. Harmon
  • Francois Rozet
  • Xavier Cathelineau
  • Eric Barret
  • Guy Vallancien


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.


Radical Prostatectomy Estimate Blood Loss Laparoscopy Radical Prostatectomy Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Radical Prostatec 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Menon M, Shrivastava A, Tewari A. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: conventional and robotic. Urology 2005;66(suppl 5):101–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Steers WD, LeBeau S, Cardella J, Fulmer B. Establishing a robotics program. Urol Clin North Am 2004;31:773–780, x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cathelineau X, Rozet F, Vallancien G. Robotic radical prostatectomy: the European experience. Urol Clin North Am 2004;31:693–699, viii.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wolfram M, Brautigam R, Engl T, et al. Roboticassisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Frankfurt technique. World J Urol 2003;21: 128–132.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology 1997;50: 854–857.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Justin D. Harmon
    • 1
  • Francois Rozet
    • 2
  • Xavier Cathelineau
    • 2
  • Eric Barret
    • 2
  • Guy Vallancien
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of UrologyRobert Wood Johnson Medical School Cooper University HospitalCamdenUSA
  2. 2.Department of UrologyL’Institute Mutualiste MontsourisParisFrance

Personalised recommendations