Korean J Urol.  2009 Dec;50(12):1198-1202.

Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy versus Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: A Single Surgeon's Experience

• Cho JW
• Kim TH
• Sung GT

Abstract

PURPOSE
We compared a single surgeon's experience with radical prostatectomy by laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) versus robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) with regard to preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed 120 patients undergoing LRP and RARP from January 2003 to December 2008. The patients were matched for age, body mass index, prostate-specific antigen, pathological stage, and Gleason score. Preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative data, including complications, and trifecta results (positive surgical margin, potency, and continence) were analyzed between the two groups.
RESULTS
The two groups were statistically similar with respect to age, body mass index, prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and clinical stage. The RARP group showed better results in operative time, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, and bladder catheterization duration. There were no major complications, but minor complications occurred in 25.0% versus 10.0% of cases. The trifecta results were better in the RARP group than in the LRP group.
CONCLUSIONS
RARP showed excellent results in several operative parameters compared with LRP. If the economic hurdle to RARP can be overcome, it will become the standard treatment in radical prostatectomy.

Keyword

Prostatic neoplasms; Prostatectomy; Laparoscopy; Robotics

MeSH Terms

Body Mass Index
Catheterization
Catheters
Humans
Laparoscopy
Length of Stay
Neoplasm Grading
Operative Time
Prostate-Specific Antigen
Prostatectomy
Prostatic Neoplasms
Retrospective Studies
Robotics
Urinary Bladder
Prostate-Specific Antigen

Reference

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

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

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

4. Binder J, Kramer W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2001. 87:408–410.

5. Pasticier G, Rietbergen JB, Guillonneau B, Fromont G, Menon M, Vallancien G. Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: feasibility study in men. Eur Urol. 2001. 40:70–74.

6. Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody J. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technique. J Urol. 2003. 169:2289–2292.

7. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Tewari A, Sarle R, Hemal A, Peabody JO, et al. Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol. 2002. 168:945–949.

8. 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.

9. Rozet F, Jaffe J, Braud G, Harmon J, Cathelineau X, Barret E, et al. A direct comparison of robotic assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single institution experience. J Urol. 2007. 178:478–482.

10. Joseph JV, Vicente I, Madeb R, Erturk E, Patel HR. Robot-assisted vs pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Are there any differences? BJU Int. 2005. 96:39–42.

11. 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.

12. Rozet F, Galiano M, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Cathala N, Vallancien G. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective evaluation of 600 cases. J Urol. 2005. 174:908–911.

13. Patel VR, Tully AS, Holmes R, Lindsay J. Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting--the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol. 2005. 174:269–272.

14. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Tewari A. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: conventional and robotic. Urology. 2005. 66:5 Suppl. 101–104.

15. Ham WS, Park SY, Rha KH, Choi YD. Comparison of open versus robotic radical prostatectomy in clinically advanced prostate cancer. Korean J Urol. 2008. 49:886–892.

16. Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, Do M, Ho K, Dorschner W, Waldkirch E, et al. Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: oncological and functional results after 700 procedures. J Urol. 2005. 174:1271–1275.

17. 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.

18. Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody JO, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, Bhandari A, et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy, a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy for management of localized carcinoma of the prostate: experience of over 1100 cases. Urol Clin North Am. 2004. 31:701–717.

19. Su LM, Link RE, Bhayani SB, Sullivan W, Pavlovich CP. Nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: replicating the open surgical technique. Urology. 2004. 64:123–127.