Skip to main content
Log in

Does the extraperitoneal laparoscopic approach improve the outcome of radical prostatectomy?

  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRPE) became the operative procedure of choice for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer in selected urologic centers around the world. Principal advantages are the minimal invasive nature of the procedure, a superior visualization of the operative field because of the magnification of the optical system, an exact and watertight anastomosis, the possibility of early catheter removal, and a potentially reduced amount of blood loss. Recent data show that oncologic outcome is not compromised by the minimal invasive nature of the procedure. However, a major drawback of LRPE is the transperitoneal route of access to the extraperitoneal organ of the prostate. Therefore, principal disadvantages of LRPE are potential intraperitoneal complications. Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy is a further advancement of minimal invasive surgery because it overcomes the limitations of LRPE by the strictly extraperitoneal route of access, combining the advantages of minimal invasive surgery with the advantages of an extraperitoneal procedure. This article reviews the literature on minimally invasive (laparoscopic and endoscopic-extraperitoneal) radical prostatectomy.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Dayman RV, Kavoussi LR: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology 1997, 50:854–857.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Barret E, et al.: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: preliminary evaluation after 28 interventions. Presse Med 1998, 27:1570–1574.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Vogeli TA, Burchardt M, Fornara P, et al.: Laparoscopic Working Group of the German Urological Association. Current laparoscopic practice patterns in urology: results of a survey among urologists in Germany and Switzerland. Eur Urol 2002, 42:441–446.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Walsh PC: Anatomic radical prostatectomy. In Campbells Urology, vol 4, edn 8. Edited by Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED, Wein AJ. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2002:3107–3129.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Raboy A, Ferzli G, Albert P: Initial experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 1997, 50:849–853.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bollens R, Van den Bosche M, Roumeguere T, et al.: Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: results after 50 cases. Eur Urol 2001, 40:65–69.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Stolzenburg JU, Do M, Pfeiffer H, et al.: The endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): technique and initial experience. World J Urol 2002, 20:48–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Stolzenburg JU, Do M, Rabenalt R, et al.: Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): initial experience after 70 procedures. J Urol 2002, 169:2066–2071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Stolzenburg JU, Truss MC: Technique of laparoscopic (endoscopic) radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2003, 91:749–757.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Stolzenburg JU, Truss MC, Do M, et al.: Evolution of endoscopic Extraperitoneal Radical Prostatectomy (EERPE): technical improvements and development of a nerve-sparing, potency-preserving approach. World J Urol 2003, 21:147–152. The authors describe the original technique of nerve-sparing endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Türk I, Deger IS, Winkelmann B, et al.: Die laparoskopische radikale Prostatektomie: erfahrungen mit 145 eingriffen. Urologe A 2001, 40:199–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rassweiler J, Sentker L, Seemann O, et al.: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique: an analysis of the first 180 cases. J Urol 2001, 166:2101–2108.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Guillonneau B, el-Fettouh H, Baumert H, et al.: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological evaluation after 1000 cases at Montsouris Institute. J Urol 2003, 169:1261–1266. The latest update of the largest laparoscopic series worldwide. For the first time, the data match oncological results of similar large series with open prostatectomies.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hoznek A, Antiphon P, Borkowski T, et al.: Assessment of surgical technique and perioperative morbidity associated with extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2003, 61:617–622. The first study comparing the morbidity and surgical technique of the two main variants of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hara I, Kawabata G, Miyake H, et al.: Comparison of quality of life following laparoscopic and open prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 2003, 169:2045–2048.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Catalona WJ, Carvalhal GF, Mager DE, Smith DS: Potency, continence, and complication rates in 1,870 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol 1999, 162:433–438.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Guillonneau B, Rozet F, Barret E, et al.: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 240 procedures. Urol Clin North Am 2001, 28:189–202.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Doublet JD, et al.: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 550 procedures. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2002, 43:123–133.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Walsh PC: Anatomical radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique. J Urol 1998, 160:2418–2424.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Walsh PW, Donker PJ: Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol 1982, 128:492–497.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rassweiler J, Seemann O, Schulze M, et al.: Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. J Urol 2003, 169:1689–1693.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Doublet JD, Vallancien G: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the lessons learned. J Endourol 2001, 15:441–445.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Eden CG, Cahill D, Vass JA, et al.: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the initial UK series. BJU Int 2002, 90:876–882.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Dahl DM, L’Esperance JO, Trainer AF, et al.: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial 70 cases at a US university medical center. Urology 2002, 60:859–863.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bishoff JT, Allaf ME, Kirkels W, et al.: Laparoscopic bowel injury: incidence and clinical presentation. J Urol 1999, 161:887–890.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Champault G, Cazacu F, Taffinder N: Serious trocar accidents in laparoscopic surgery: a French survey of 103,853 operations. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1996, 6:367–370.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Gill IS, Kerbl K, Meraney AM, Clayman RV: Basics of laparoscopic urologic surgery. In Campbells Urology vol 4, edn 8. Edited by Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED, Wein AJ. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2002:3455–3505.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pattaras JG, Moore RG, Landman J, et al.: Incidence of postoperative adhesion formation after transperitoneal genitourinary laparoscopic surgery. Urology 2002, 59:37–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Seifman B, Dunn R, Wolf JS: Transperitoneal laparoscopy in the previously operated abdomen: effect on operation time, length of stay, and complications. J Urol 2003, 169:36–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Weibel MA, Majno G: Peritoneal adhesions and their relation to abdominal surgery: a postmortem study. Am J Surg 1973, 126:345–353.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Guillonneau B, Vallancien G: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris experience. J Urol 2000, 163:418–422.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Gregori A, Simonato A, Lissiani A, et al.: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: perioperative complications in an initial and consecutive series of 80 cases [In process citation]. Eur Urol 2003, 44:190–194.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Jacob F, Salomon L, Hoznek A, et al.: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: preliminary results. Eur Urol 2000, 37:615–620.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Guillonneau B, Rozet F, Cathelineau X, et al.: Perioperative complications of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris 3-year experience. J Urol 2002,167:51–56. The largest series of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy showing the possible complications of the technique.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Guillonneau B, Gupta R, El Fettouh H, et al.: Laparoscopic [correction of laparoscopic] management of rectal injury during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2003, 169:1694–1696.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Katz R, Borkowski T, Hoznek A, et al.: Operative management of rectal injuries during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2003, 62:310–313.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Augustin H, Hammerer P, Graefen M, et al.: Intraoperative and perioperative morbidity of contemporary radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1243 patients: results of a single center between 1999 and 2002. Eur Urol 2003, 43:113–118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Fornara P, Doehn C, Seyfarth M, Jocham, D: Why is urological laparoscopy minimally invasive? Eur Urol 2000, 37:241–250.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Nadu A, Salomon L, Hoznek A, et al.: Early removal of the catheter after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2001, 166:1662–1664.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Abreu SC, Gill I, Kaouk JH, et al.: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: comparison of transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal approach. J Urol 2002, 167:A76.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Schulman PG, Link RE: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 2000, 18:278–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stolzenburg, JU., Truss, M.C., Bekos, A. et al. Does the extraperitoneal laparoscopic approach improve the outcome of radical prostatectomy?. Curr Urol Rep 5, 115–122 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-004-0023-9

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-004-0023-9

Keywords

Navigation