Robot-assisted vs pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: are there any differences?

University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, United States
BJU International (Impact Factor: 3.13). 08/2005; 96(1):39-42. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05563.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To compare our experience of pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RAP).
The two techniques were compared retrospectively in 100 patients with localized prostate cancer who had LRP or RAP (50 each). Both groups were similar in age, serum prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason score and clinical stage. Their charts were reviewed, collating intraoperative data and early functional outcome.
The mean surgical time for LRP and RAP was 235 and 202 min (P > 0.05) and mean (95% confidence interval) blood loss 299 (40) and 206 (63) mL (P = 0.014), with no transfusions in either group. The positive margin rate did not differ significantly (14% LRP and 12% RAP) and there was no biochemical recurrence in either group. Early functional outcomes were similar.
Both LRP and RAP are technically demanding, but feasible, with the patient clearly benefiting. There were no major surgical differences between the techniques, but RAP is more costly.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: Despite the wide diffusion of minimally invasive approaches, such as laparoscopic (LRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP), few studies compare the results of these techniques with the retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) approach. The aim of this study is to compare the surgical, functional, and oncological outcomes and cost-effectiveness of RRP, LRP, and RALP. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed in the PubMed and Embase databases in December 2013. A 'free-text' protocol using the term 'radical prostatectomy' was applied. A total of 16,085 records were found. The authors reviewed the records to identify comparative studies to include in the review. Results: 44 comparative studies were identified. With regard to the perioperative outcome, LRP and RALP were more time-consuming than RRP, but blood loss, transfusion rates, catheterisation time, hospitalisation duration, and complication rates were the most optimal in the laparoscopic approaches. With regard to the functional and oncological results, RALP was found to have the best outcomes. Conclusion: Our study confirmed the well-known perioperative advantage of minimally invasive techniques; however, available data were not sufficient to prove the superiority of any surgical approach in terms of functional and oncologic outcomes. On the contrary, cost comparison clearly supports RRP. © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel.
    Urologia Internationalis 09/2014; 93(4). DOI:10.1159/000366008 · 1.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is one of the most commonly affected domains of health‐related quality of life after prostate cancer therapy. Functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) have continued to improve through refinement of surgical techniques and development of several procedural modifications. In this context, it has been hypothesized that robotic technologies should simplify the preservation of the neurovascular bundle, thus possibly providing improved functional outcomes.
    01/2014; 2(1). DOI:10.1002/smrj.21
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To analyze the location of the positive surgical margin (PSM) and its association with the biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate in cases of radical prostatectomy (RP) according to the type of surgery. We retrospectively analyzed 1,880 cases of RP. Baseline characteristics were analyzed. Locations of the PSM were recorded in the four surgery groups as apex, anterior, posterolateral, and base and were analyzed by using chi-square test. The association of the location of the PSM with the BCR rate was analyzed by using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis according to the type of surgery, which included radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP, n=633), radical retroperitoneal prostatectomy (RRP, n=309), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP, n=164), and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP, n=774). A PSM was found in a total of 336 cases (18%): 122 cases of RPP (18%), 67 cases of RRP (17%), 29 cases of LRP (17%), and 119 cases of RALRP (15%). The PSM rate did not differ significantly by surgical type (p=0.142). The location of the PSM was the apex in 136 cases (7.2%), anterior in 67 cases (3.5%), posterolateral in 139 cases (7.3%), and base in 95 cases (5.0%), and showed no significant difference according to surgical type (p=0.536, p=0.557, p=0.062, and p=0.109, respectively). The BCR rate according to the location of the PSM did not differ significantly for the four types of surgery (p=0.694, p=0.301, p=0.445, and p=0.309 for RPP, RRP, LRP, and RALRP, respectively). The location of the PSM seemed to be unrelated to type of RP. There was no significant correlation between the BCR rate and the location of the PSM for any of the RP types.
    Korean journal of urology 12/2014; 55(12):802-7. DOI:10.4111/kju.2014.55.12.802