Advertisement

The Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy

  • Kristy M. Borawski
  • James O. L’Esperance
  • David M. Albala

Abstract

Whenever a new procedure is introduced, it is imperative that it offers the same or improved outcomes compared to the gold standard. This is especially true when one is dealing with oncologic outcomes. Proponents of robotic surgery are in favor of its three-dimensional (3D) visualization, wristed instruments, finger-controlled movements, seven degrees of freedom (six degrees and freedom of grip) as well as tremor elimination.1–6 With these advantages there a is a possibility of increased precision and improved oncologic outcomes. One disadvantage, however, is the lack of tactile feedback.

Keywords

Radical Prostatectomy Positive Margin Positive Surgical Margin Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Binder J, Brautigam R, Jonas D, et al. Robotic surgery in urology: fact or fantasy? BJU Int 2004;94:1183–1187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Menon M, Hemal AK, Team VIP. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy: experience in more than 1000 cases. J Endourol 2004;18:611–619; discussion 619.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody J, et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technique. J Urol 2003; 169:2289–2292.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Menon M, Tewari A, Vattikuti Institute Prostatectomy Team. 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
  5. 5.
    Tewari A, Peabody J, Sarle R, et al. Technique of da Vinci robot-assisted anatomic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2002;60:569–572.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Humphreys MR, Gettman MT, Chow GK, et al. Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. Mayo Clin Proc 2004;79:1169–1180.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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;92:205–210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, et al. Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience [see comment]. Urology 2002;60:864–868.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 110–111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    Eden CG, Cahill D, Vass JA, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the initial UK series. BJU Int 2002;90:876–882.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wolfram M, Brautigam R, Engl T, et al. Roboticassisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Frankfurt technique. World J Urol 2003;21: 128–132.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wieder JA, Soloway MS. Incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 1998;160:299–315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Lee D, et al. Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy [see comment]. J Urol 2003;170:1738–1741.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hull GW, Rabbani F, Abbas F, et al. Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Urol 2002;167:528–534.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lance RS, Freidrichs PA, Kane C, et al. A comparison of radical retropubic with perineal prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer within the Uniformed Services Urology Research Group. BJU Int 2001;87:61–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lepor H. Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Rev Urol 2005;7:115–127.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lepor H, Nieder AM, Ferrandino MN. Intraoperative and postoperative complications of radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1,000 cases. J Urol 2001;166:1729–1733.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Anastasiadis AG, Salomon L, Katz R, et al. Radical retropubic versus laparoscopic prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of functional outcome. Urology 2003;62:292–297.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Blute ML, Bostwick DG, Bergstralh EJ, et al. Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organconfined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology 1997;50:733–739.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M, et al. Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2005;174:903–907.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Epstein JI, Partin AW, Sauvageot J, et al. Prediction of progression following radical prostatectomy. A multivariate analysis of 721 men with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol 1996;20: 286–292.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Menon M. Robotic radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int 2003;91:175–176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    Gettman MT, Hoznek A, Salomon L, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of the extraperitoneal approach using the da Vinci robotic system. J Urol 2003;170:416–419.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Samadi DB, Nadu A, Olsson E, et al. Robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy — initial experience in eleven patients. J Urol 2002;167 (suppl): 390.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pasticier G, Rietbergen JB, Guillonneau B, et al. Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: feasibility study in men. Eur Urol 2001; 40:70–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Binder J, Kramer W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2001;87: 408–410.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Menon M, Shrivastava A, Sarle R, et al. Vattikuti Institute Prostatectomy: a single-team experience of 100 cases. J Endourol 2003;17:785–790.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cathelineau X, Rozet F, Vallancien G. Robotic radical prostatectomy: the European experience. Urol Clin North Am 2004;31:693–699.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Patel VR, Tully AS, Holmes R, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting —the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol 2005;174:269–272.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Smith JA Jr. Robotically assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: an assessment of its contemporary role in the surgical management of localized prostate cancer. Am J Surg 2004;188(suppl):63S–67S.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Edwards RA, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy: a technique to reduce pT2 positive margins. Urology 2004;64:1224–1228.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Costello AJ. Beyond marketing: the real value of robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2005;96:1–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Joseph JV, Vicente I, Madeb R, et al. Robot-assisted vs pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: are there any differences? BJU Int 2005;96:39–42.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Brown JA, Garlitz C, Gomella LG, et al. Pathologic comparison of laparoscopic versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens. Urology 2003;62:481–486.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dahl DM, L’Esperance JO, Trainer AF, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial 70 cases at a U.S. university medical center [see comment]. Urology 2002;60:859–863.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Doublet JD, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 550 procedures. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2002;43:123–133.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    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
  40. 40.
    Ahlering TE, Woo D, Eichel L, et al. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon’s outcomes. Urology 2004;63:819–822.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristy M. Borawski
    • 1
  • James O. L’Esperance
    • 2
  • David M. Albala
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Surgery / Division of UrologyDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of UrologyDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations