Platinum open access journal
pISSN 2466-0493 eISSN 2466-054X
Indexed in MEDLINE, SCIE, Scopus, DOAJ and more
    Korean J Urol. 2008 Oct;49(10):886-892. Korean.
    Published online Oct 31, 2008.
    https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2008.49.10.886
    Copyright © 2008 The Korean Urological Association
    Original Article

    Comparison of Open versus Robotic Radical Prostatectomy in Clinically Advanced Prostate Cancer

    Won Sik Ham, Sung Yul Park, Koon Ho Rha and Young Deuk Choi
      • Department of Urology and Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
    Received January 25, 2008; Accepted September 09, 2008.

    Abstract

    Purpose

    To evaluate the outcomes of robotic prostatectomy (RP) compared with open radical prostatectomy (OP) in clinically advanced prostate cancer (PC).

    Materials and Methods

    Between January 2003 and June 2007 we performed radical prostatectomy in 180 patients with clinically advanced PC (OP, 88; RP, 92). We compared the perioperative parameters and early surgical outcomes between the OP and RP groups in patients with and without neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT).

    Results

    In patients without NHT, there were no significant differences in preoperative characteristics between the OP and RP groups, but in patients with NHT, the RP patients had higher biopsy Gleason scores (GS) and clinical stages. There were no significant differences in lymph node (LN) invasion and extracapsular extension (ECE), but a significant difference existed in the prostatectomy GS between the OP and RP groups, regardless of NHT. The positive surgical margin rates in the RP group were similar to or lower than in the OP groups when stratified by pathologic stages T2 and T3. Irrespective of NHT, in the RP group the mean estimated blood loss was decreased, the mean duration of the hospital stay was less, and the length of bladder catheterization was shorter, but there were no significant differences in the postoperative day the regular diet was started or the frequency of complications. Although there were no significant differences in continence rates between the two groups, all the RP patients had a higher continence rate from 1 month postoperatively, with or without NHT.

    Conclusions

    Our results suggest that RP may be performed safely and may have results comparable to OP in clinically advanced PC.

    Keywords
    Prostatic neoplasms; Open radical prostatectomy; Robotic radical prostatectom

    Tables

    Table 1
    Preoperative patient characteristics

    Table 2
    Intraoperative and perioperative parameters based on the operative methods

    Table 3
    Complications based on the operative methods

    Table 4
    Return of continence based on the operative methods

    References

      1. Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol 1982;128:492–497.
      1. Meltzer D, Egleston B, Abdalla I. Patterns of prostate cancer treatment by clinical stage and age. Am J Public Health 2001;91:126–128.
      1. Freedland SJ, Partin AW, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, Walsh PC. Radical prostatectomy for clinical stage T3a disease. Cancer 2007;109:1273–1278.
      1. Carver BS, Bianco FJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Long-term outcome following radical prostatectomy in men with clinical stage T3 prostate cancer. J Urol 2006;176:564–568.
      1. Montie JE. Initial therapy with radical prostatectomy for high risk localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2006;176:9.
      1. Ward JF, Slezak JM, Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Zincke H. Radical prostatectomy for clinically advanced (cT3) prostate cancer since the advent of prostate-specific antigen testing: 15-year outcome. BJU Int 2005;95:751–756.
      1. Thompson IM, Carroll PR, Carducci MA. Recommendations for defining and treating high risk localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2006;176:S6–S10.
      1. Guillonneau B, el-Fettouh H, Baumert H, Cathelineau X, Doublet JD, Fromont G, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological evaluation after 1,000 cases a Montsouris Institute. J Urol 2003;169:1261–1266.
      1. Bhayani SB, Pavlovich CP, Hsu TS, Sullivan W, Su LM. Prospective comparison of short-term convalescence: laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2003;61:612–616.
      1. Boccon-Gibod L. Radical prostatectomy: open? Laparoscopic? Robotic? Eur Urol 2006;49:598–599.
      1. Hara I, Kawabata G, Miyake H, Nakamura I, Hara S, Okada H, et al. Comparison of quality of life following laparoscopic and open prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 2003;169:2045–2048.
      1. Jaffe J, Stakhovsky O, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Vallancien G, Rozet F. Surgical outcomes for men undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after transurethral resection of the prostate. J Urol 2007;178:483–487.
      1. Touijer K, Guillonneau B. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a critical analysis of surgical quality. Eur Urol 2006;49:625–632.
      1. Zorn KC, Gofrit ON, Orvieto MA, Mikhail AA, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: functional and pathologic outcomes with interfascial nerve preservation. Eur Urol 2007;51:755–762.
      1. 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.
      1. Nelson B, Kaufman M, Broughton G, Cookson MS, Chang SS, Herrell SD, et al. Comparison of length of hospital stay between radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Urol 2007;177:929–931.
      1. Webster TM, Herrell SD, Chang SS, Cookson MS, Baumgartner RG, Anderson LW, et al. Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of postoperative pain. J Urol 2005;174:912–914.
      1. Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int 2003;92:205–210.
      1. Song KH, Park H, Han JY, You CH, Ahn H, Kim CS. The effect of neoadjuvant hormonal treatment in prostate cancer on biochemical recurrence. Korean J Urol 2007;48:1125–1130.
      1. Deliveliotis C, Protogerou V, Alargof E, Varkarakis J. Radical prostatectomy: bladder neck preservation and puboprostatic ligament sparing-effects on continence and positive margins. Urology 2002;60:855–858.
      1. Ludwikowski B, Oesch Hayward I, Brenner E, Fritsch H. The development of the external urethral sphincter in humans. BJU Int 2001;87:565–568.
      1. Myers RP. Detrusor apron, associated vascular plexus, and avascular plane: relevance to radical retropubic prostatectomy-anatomic and surgical commentary. Urology 2002;59:472–479.
      1. Ahlering TE, Woo D, Eichel L, Lee DI, Edwards R, Skarecky DW. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon's outcomes. Urology 2004;63:819–822.
    Cited by
    Crossref 4
    Google Scholar 
    Scopus 4
    MeSH Terms
    Biopsy
    Metrics
    Share
    Tables
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide

    1 / 4

    PERMALINK