Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review
  • Published:

Overcoming the challenges of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 15, pages 1–7 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is the most commonly performed robotic procedure worldwide and is firmly established as a standard treatment option for localised prostate cancer. Part of the explanation for the rapid uptake of RARP is the reported gentler learning curve compared with the challenges of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). However, robotic surgery is still fraught with potential difficulties and avoiding complications while on the steepest part of the learning curve is critical. Furthermore, as surgeons progress there is a tendency to take on increasingly complex cases, including patients with difficult anatomy and prior surgery, and these cases present a unique challenge. Significant intra-abdominal adhesions may be identified following open surgery, or dense periprostatic inflammation may be encountered following TURP; large prostate gland size and median lobes may alter bladder neck anatomy, making difficult subsequent urethro-vesical anastomosis. Even experienced robotic surgeons will be challenged by salvage RARP. Approaching these problems in a structured manner allows many of the problems to be overcome. We discuss some of the specific techniques to deal with these potential difficulties and highlight ways to avoid making serious mistakes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vickers A, Savage C, Bianco F, Mulhall J, Sandhu J, Guillonneau B et al. Cancer control and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy as markers of surgical quality: analysis of heterogeneity between surgeons at a single cancer center. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 317–322.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rashid HH, Leung YYM, Rashid MJ, Oleyourryk G, Valvo JR, Eichel L . Robotic surgical education: a systematic approach to training urology residents to perform robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2006; 68: 75–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Zorn CK, Gautam G, Shalhav AL, Clayman RV, Ahlering TE, Albala DM et al. Training, credentialing, proctoring and medicolegal risks of robotic urological surgery: recommendations of the society of urologic robotic surgeons. J Urol 2009; 182: 1126–1131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Herron DM, Marohn M, SAGES-MIRA Robotic Surgery Consensus Group. A consensus on robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 2008; 22: 313–325.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Goldstraw MA, Patil K, Anderson C, Dasgupta P, Kirby RS . A selected review and personal experience with robotic prostatectomy: implications for adoption of this new technology in the United Kingdom. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2007; 10: 242–249.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Atug F, Castle EP, Srivastav SK, Burgess SV, Thomas R, Davis R . Positive surgical margins in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: impact of learning curve on oncological outcomes. Eur Urol 2006; 49: 866–872.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Lee D, Clayman RV . Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2003; 170: 1738–1741.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Murphy DG, Bjartell A, Ficarra V, Graefen M, Haese A, Montironi R et al. Downsides of Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Limitations and Complications. Eur Urol 2010; 57: 735–746.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zorn KC, Wille MA, Thong AE, Katz MH, Shikanov SA, Razmaria A et al. Continued improvement of perioperative, pathological and continence outcomes during 700 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies. Can J Urol 2009; 16: 4742–4749.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Doumerc N, Yuen C, Savdie R, Rahman MB, Rasiah KK, Pe Benito R et al. Should experienced open prostatic surgeons convert to robotic surgery? The real learning curve for one surgeon over 3 years. BJU Int 2010; 106: 378–384.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schwartz BF . Training requirements and credentialing for laparoscopic and robotic surgery--what are our responsibilities? J Urol 2009; 182: 828–829.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lavery HJ, Thaly R, Albala D, Ahlering T, Shalhav A, Lee D et al. Robotic equipment malfunction during robotic prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study. J Endourol 2008; 22: 2165–2168.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Murphy D, Challacombe B, Elhage O, Dasgupta P . Complications in robotic urological surgery. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2007; 59: 191–198.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. World Health Organisation Surgical Safety Checklist. National Patient Safety agency Ref: 0861. Jan 2009.

  15. Mayer EK, Winkler MH, Aggarwal R, Karim O, Ogden C, Hrouda D et al. Robotic prostatectomy: the first UK experience. Int J Med Robot 2006; 2: 321–328.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rosevear HM, Lightfoot AJ, Zahs M, Waxman SW, Winfield HN . Lessons learned from a case of calf compartment syndrome after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Endourol 2010; 24: 1597–1601.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Palese MA, Munver R, Phillips CK, Dinlenc C, Stifelman M, DelPizzo JJ . Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. JSLS 2005; 9: 252–257.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. de Menezes Ettinger JE, dos Santos Filho PV, Azaro E . Prevention of rhabdomyolysis in bariatric surgery. Obes Surg 2005; 15: 874–879.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shaikh S, Nabi G, McClinton S . Risk factors and prevention of rhabdomyolysis after lap nephrectomy. BJU Int 2006; 98: 960–962.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee KL, Hsu TH . Physiologic response to laparoscopic surgery: practical considerations. Contemp Urol 2004; 16: 36–45.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Meininger D, Westphal K, Bremerich DH, Runkel H, Probst M, Zwissler B et al. Effects of posture and prolonged pneumoperitoneum on hemodynamic parameters during laparoscopy. World J Surg 2008; 32: 1400–1405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Phong S, Koh L . Anaesthesia for robotic radical prostatectomy: considerations for laparoscopy in Trendelenburg position. Anaesth Intensive Care 2007; 35: 281–285.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chang CH, Lee HK, Nam SH . The displacement of the tracheal tube during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010; 27: 478–480.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Carey RI, Leveillee RJ . Patient positioning for robotic urologic procedures. In: Patel VR (ed). Robotic Urologic Surgery. Springer: London, 2007, pp 61–66.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Cestari A, Buffi NM, Scapaticci E, Lughezzani G, Salonia A, Briganti A et al. Simplifying patient positioning and port placement during robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2010; 57: 530–533.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Dunne N, Booth M, Dehn T . Establishing pneumoperitoneum: Verres or Hasson? The debate continues. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2011; 93: 22–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gibson B, Abaza R . Robotic repair of access-related aortic injuries: unexpected complication of robot-assisted prostatectomy. J Endourol 2011; 25: 235–238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Van Appledorn S, Bouchier-Hayes D, Agarwal D, Costello AJ . Robotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: setup and procedural techniques after 150 cases. Urology 2006; 67: 364–367.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hemal AK, Eun D, Tewari A, Menon M . Nuances in the optimum placement of ports in pelvic and upper urinary tract surgery using the da Vinci robot. Urol Clin N Am 2004; 31: 683–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Siddiqui SA, Krane LS, Bhandari A, Patel MN, Rogers CG, Stricker H et al. The impact of previous inguinal or abdominal surgery on outcomes after robotic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2010; 75: 1079–1082.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cook H, Afzal N, Cornaby AJ . Laparoscopic hernia repairs may make subsequent radical retropubic more hazardous. BJU Int 2003; 91: 729.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cooperberg MR, Downs TM, Carroll PR . Radical retropubic prostatectomy frustrated by prior laparoscopic mesh herniorrhaph. Surgery 2004; 135: 452–453.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Laungani RG, Kaul S, Muhletaler F, Badani KK, Peabody J, Menon M . Impact of previous inguinal hernia repair on transperitoneal robotic prostatectomy. Can J Urol 2007; 14: 3635–3639.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Stolzenburg JU, Anderson C, Rabenalt R, Do M, Ho K, Truss MC . Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer and previous laparoscopic inguinal mesh placement for hernia repair. World J Urol 2005; 23: 295–299.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Pettus JA, Masterson T, Sokol A, Cronin AM, Savage C, Sandhu JS et al. Prostate size is associated with surgical difficulty but not functional outcome at 1 year after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2009; 182: 949–955.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Martínez CH, Chalasani V, Lim D, Nott L, Al-Bareeq RJ, Wignall GR et al. Effect of prostate gland size on the learning curve for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does size matter initially? J Endourol 2010; 24: 261–266.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Link BA, Nelson R, Josephson DY, Yoshida JS, Crocitto LE, Kawachi MH et al. The impact of gland weight in robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2008; 180: 928–932.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Tewari AK, Rao SR . Anatomical foundations ans surgical manoeuvres for precise identification of the prostatovesical junction during robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2006; 98: 833–837.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Menon M, Hemal AK, Tewari A, Shrivastava A, Bhandari A . The technique of apical dissection of the prostate and urthrovesical anastamosis in robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2004; 93: 715–719.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Rehman J, Chughtai B, Guru K, Shabsigh R, Samadi DB . Management of an enlarged median lobe with ureteral orifices at the margin of bladder neck during robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Can J Urol 2009; 16: 4490–4494.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Meeks JJ, Zhao L, Greco KA, Macejko A, Nadler RB . Impact of prostate median lobe anatomy on robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Urology 2009; 73: 323–327.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Murphy DG, Agarwal D, Costello AJ . Anterior retraction of the prostate during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using the closure device. BJU Int 2009; 103: 558–562.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. El Douaihy Y, Tan GY, Dorsey PJ, Jhaveri JK, Tewari AK . Double-pigtail stenting of the ureters: technique for securing the ureteral orifices during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for large median lobes. J Endourol 2009; 23: 1975–1977.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Mason BM, Hakimi AA, Faleck D, Chernyak V, Rozenblitt A, Ghavamian R . The role of endo-rectal magnetic resonance imaging in predicting difficulty for robotic prostatectomy. Urology 2010; 76: 1130–1135.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Do M, Haefner T, Liatsikos E, Kallidonis P, Hicks J, Dietel A et al. Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of prostate: oncologic and functional outcomes of 100 cases. Urology 2010; 75: 1348–1352.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, Do M, Kallidonis P, Liatsikos EN . Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: the University of Leipzig experience of 2000 cases. J Endourol 2008; 22: 2319–2325.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Hampton L, Nelson RA, Satterthwaite R, Wilson T, Crocitto L . Patients with prior TURP undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy have higher positive surgical margin rates. J Robotic Surg 2008; 2: 213–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Colombo R, Naspro R, Salonia A, Montorsi F, Raber M, Suardi N et al. Radical prostatectomy after previous prostate surgery: clinical and functional outcomes. J Urol 2006; 176: 2459–2463.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Eden CG, Richards AJ, Ooi J, Moon DA, Laczko I . Previous bladder outlet surgery does not affect medium-term outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2007; 99: 399–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Menard J, de la Taille A, Hoznek A, Allory Y, Vordos D, Yiou R et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after transurethral resection of the prostate: surgical and functional outcomes. Urology 2008; 72: 593–597.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Jamal K, Challacombe B, Elhage O, Popert R, Kirby R, Dasgupta P . Successful salvage robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy after external beam radiotherapy failure. Urology 2008; 72: 1356–1358.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Boris RS, Bhandari A, Krane LS, Eun D, Kaul S, Peabody JO . Salvage robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: initial results and early report of outcomes. BJU Int 2009; 103: 952–956.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Eandi JA, Link BA, Nelson RA, Josephson DY, Lau C, Kawachi MH et al. Robotic assisted laparoscopic salvage prostatectomy for radiation resistant prostate cancer. J Urol 2010; 183: 133–137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Vallancien G, Gupta R, Cathelineau X, Baumert H, Rozet F . Initial results of salvage laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after radiation failure. J Urol 2003; 170: 1838–1840.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Barnet and Chase Farm NHS Trust, Enfield, London, UK,

    M A Goldstraw

  2. Guy's and St Thomas’ NHS foundation, London, UK

    B J Challacombe & P Dasgupta

  3. St Peters Hospital, Guildford, UK

    K Patil

  4. The Prostate Centre, London, UK

    P Amoroso, P Dasgupta & R S Kirby

Authors
  1. M A Goldstraw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B J Challacombe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K Patil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P Amoroso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P Dasgupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R S Kirby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M A Goldstraw.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goldstraw, M., Challacombe, B., Patil, K. et al. Overcoming the challenges of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 15, 1–7 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2011.37

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2011.37

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links