Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Prostate Surgeon’s Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery

  • 1038 Accesses

Abstract

The availability and promulgation of robotic technology have resulted in a paradigm shift in the use of radical prostatectomy. Historically radical prostatectomy was performed using an open approach, usually the retropubic approach and rarely using a laparoscopic approach. Recently, however, robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) [1] has swept across the United States at an extremely rapid rate, accounting for greater than 85% of cases performed in 2011 [2, 3]. While the early adopters and promoters of RARP were laparoendoscopic specialists, the robotic-assisted approach is becoming the procedure of choice for urologic oncologists as well. In addition, residents are being trained in the use of such technology. The actual costs, benefits, and risks of robotic as compared to open radical prostatectomy remain somewhat controversial. Often lost in such debate is the role of radical prostatectomy, by whatever approach, in the management of prostate cancer, given the considerable stage/grade migration that has occurred because of widespread PSA testing and the mounting concerns regarding prostate cancer over detection and treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Castle EP, Lee D. Working group of urologic robotic surgeons scientific c: nomenclature of robotic procedures in urology. J Endourol. 2008;22:1467–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hu JC, O'Malley P, Chughtai B, et al. Comparative effectiveness of cancer control and survival after robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2017;197:115–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lowrance WT, Eastham JA, Savage C, et al. Contemporary open and robotic radical prostatectomy practice patterns among urologists in the United States. J Urol. 2012;187:2087–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Society AC. Cancer facts & figures 2017. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2005;293:2095–101.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wilt TJ, MacDonald R, Rutks I, et al. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and harms of treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:435–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Filén F, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer: the Scandinavian prostate cancer group-4 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1144–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Steineck G, Helgesen F, Adolfsson J, et al. Quality of life after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:790–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL, et al. Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the american urological association prostate guidelines for localized prostate cancer update panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol. 2007;177:540–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1425–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Shahinian VB, Kuo YF, Freeman JL. Determinants of androgen deprivation therapy use for prostate cancer: role of the urologist. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:839.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Kantoff PW, et al. Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J Urol. 2007;178:S14–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Cooperberg MR, Cowan J, Broering JM, et al. High-risk prostate cancer in the United States, 1990–2007. World J Urol. 2008;26:211–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Dall'Era MA, Cooperberg MR, Chan JM, et al. Active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer. Cancer. 2008;112:1650–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990–2013. JAMA. 2015;314:80–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Abdollah F, Sood A, Sammon JD, et al. Long-term cancer control outcomes in patients with clinically high-risk prostate cancer treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: results from a multi-institutional study of 1100 patients. Eur Urol. 2015;68:497–505.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Yossepowitch O, Eastham JA. Radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2008;26:219–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ward JF, Slezak JM, Blute ML, et al. Radical prostatectomy for clinically advanced (cT3) prostate cancer since the advent of prostate-specific antigen testing: 15-year outcome. BJU Int. 2005;95:751–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Berglund RK, Jones JS, Ulchaker JC, et al. Radical prostatectomy as primary treatment modality for locally advanced prostate cancer: a prospective analysis. Urology. 2006;67:1253–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Thompson IM, Tangen CM, Paradelo J, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathological T3N0M0 prostate cancer significantly reduces risk of metastases and improves survival: long-term followup of a randomized clinical trial. J Urol. 2009;181:956–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Messing EM, Manola J, Yao J, et al. Immediate versus deferred androgen deprivation treatment in patients with node-positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7:472–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Walsh PC. Anatomic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 1998;160:2418–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nielsen ME, Schaeffer EM, Marschke P, et al. High anterior release of the levator fascia improves sexual function following open radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2008;180:2557–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schroeck FR, Krupski TL, Sun L, et al. Satisfaction and regret after open retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008;54:785–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Berryhill JR, Jhaveri J, Yadav R, et al. Robotic prostatectomy: a review of outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open approaches. Urology. 2008;72:15–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Catalona WJ, Carvalhal GF, Mager DE, et al. Potency, continence and complication rates in 1,870 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol. 1999;162:433–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ficarra V, Cavalleri S, Novara G, et al. Evidence from robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2007;51:45–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the montsouris experience. J Urol. 2000;163:418–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Herrell SD, Smith JRJA. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: what is the learning curve? Urology. 2005;66:105–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Zorn KC, Orvieto MA, Gong EM, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy learning curve of a fellowship-trained laparoscopic surgeon. 2007;21:441–7. http://www.liebertpub.com

  31. Ahlering TE, Woo D, Eichel L, et al. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon’s outcomes. Urology. 2004;63:819–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Grossfeld GD, Chang JJ, Broering JM, et al. Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate cancer recurrence and the use of secondary cancer treatment: data from the CAPSURE database. J Urol. 2000;163:1171–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Karakiewicz PI, Eastham JA, Graefen M, et al. Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in surgically treated prostate cancer: Multi-institutional assessment of 5831 patients. Urology. 2005;66:1245–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Punnen S, Meng MV, Cooperberg MR, et al. How does robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compare with open surgery in men with high-risk prostate cancer? BJU Int. 2013;112:E314–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet. 2016;388:1057–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int. 2003;92:205–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Roumeguere T, Bollens R, Bossche MV. Radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of oncological and functional results between open and laparoscopic approaches. World J Urol. 2003;20(6):360–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, et al. Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology. 2002;60:864–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ghavamian R, Knoll A, Boczko J, et al. Comparison of operative and functional outcomes of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and radical retropubic prostatectomy: single surgeon experience. Urology. 2006;67:1241–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Fromont G, Guillonneau B, Validire P, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2002;60:661–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Smith JRJA, Chan RC, Chang SS, et al. A Comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2007;178:2385–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Trabulsi EJ, Linden RA, Gomella LG. The addition of robotic surgery to an established laparoscopic radical prostatectomy program: effect on positive surgical margins. Can J Urol. 2008;15(2):3994–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hu JC, Wang Q, Pashos CL, et al. Utilization and outcomes of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2016;26:2278–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Nelson B, Kaufman M, Broughton G, et al. Comparison of length of hospital stay between radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2007;177:929–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Lotan Y, Cadeddu J, Gettman M. The new economics of radical prostatectomy: cost comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot assisted techniques. J Urol. 2004;172:1431–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Lotan Y. Economics of robotics in urology. Curr Opin Urol. 2010;20:92–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Bolenz C, Gupta A, Hotze T, et al. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2010;57:453–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Nguyen HG, Punnen S, Cowan JE, et al. A randomized study of intraoperative autologous retropubic urethral sling on urinary control after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2017;197:369–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, UCSF, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Hao G. Nguyen, Helena Chang & Peter R. Carroll

  2. Tulsa, OK, USA

    Cole Davis

Authors
  1. Hao G. Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cole Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Helena Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter R. Carroll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter R. Carroll .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

    Ashok K. Hemal

  2. Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA

    Mani Menon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Nguyen, H.G., Davis, C., Chang, H., Carroll, P.R. (2018). Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Prostate Surgeon’s Perspective. In: Hemal, A., Menon, M. (eds) Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20645-5_33

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20645-5_33

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20644-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20645-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation