Robotic Radical Prostatectomy

  • Vipul R. Patel
  • Mario F. ChammasJr.

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) [9]. The early results were less than promising, with prolonged operative times and no major advantages over conventional surgery [8].

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.


Radical 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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    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
  2. 2.
    Guillonneau B, Vallancien G (2000) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris experience. J Urol 163(2):418–422.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR (1997) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology 50(6):854–857.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vipul R. Patel
    • 1
  • Mario F. ChammasJr.
    • 2
  1. 1.Global Robotics InstituteCelebrationUSA
  2. 2.Center for Robotic and Computer-Assisted SurgeryOhio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations