Robotic Radical Prostatectomy
The concept of a laparoscopic approach to the treatment of prostate cancer is not new. In the early 1990s Schuessler et al described the laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection. Later, in 1992, Kavoussi and Clayman joined this group to describe their first successful laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) . The early results were less than promising, with prolonged operative times and no major advantages over conventional surgery .
However, in the late 1990s the procedure was revived as European surgeons reevaluated LRP and reported its feasibility, with results comparable to the open surgical approach [2,4-7,10]. Despite this, a lack of widespread acceptance and utilization of LRP has been observed, partly due to the steep learning curve of this procedure. Even in the hands of experienced laparoscopic surgeons the technical challenges imposed by the limitations of conventional laparoscopic instrumentation are formidable. Potential difficulties include lack of depth perception with a two-dimensional laparoscopic view, counterintuitive motion, and non-wristed instrumentation limited to only four degrees of surgical freedom.
KeywordsRadical Prostatectomy Seminal Vesicle Bladder Neck Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Endopelvic Fascia
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.
Eden CG, Cahill D, Vass JA, Adams TH, Dauleh MI (2002) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the initial UK series. BJU Int 90(9):876–882.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guillonneau B, Vallancien G (2000) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris experience. J Urol 163(2):418–422.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasticier G, Rietbergen JB, Guillonneau B, Fromont G, Menon M, Vallancien G (2001) Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: feasibility study in men. Eur Urol 40(1):70–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patel V, Tully SA, Holmes R and Lindsay J (2005) Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting: The learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol 174:269–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rassweiler J, Sentker L, Seemann O, Hatzinger M, Stock C, Frede T (2001) Heilbronn laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Technique and results after 100 cases. Eur Urol 40(1):54–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rassweiler J, Seemann O, Schulze M, Teber D, Hatzinger M, Frede T (2003) Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. J Urol 169(5):1689–1693.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salomon L, Levrel O, de la Taille A, et al (2002) Radical prostatectomy by the retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic approach: 12 years of experience in one center. Eur Urol 42(2):104–110; discussion 110–111.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Salomon L, Sebe P, De la Taille A, et al (2004) Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: part I. BJU Int 94(2):238–243.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR (1997) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology 50(6):854–857.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Velthoven RF, Ahlering TE, Peltier A, Skarecky DW, Clayman RV (2003) Technique for laparoscopic running urethrovesical anastomosis: the single knot method. Urology 61(4):699–702.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009