» Articles » PMID: 20123354

Transition from Pure Laparoscopic to Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: a Single Surgeon Institutional Evolution

Overview
Journal Urol Oncol
Publisher Elsevier
Date 2010 Feb 4
PMID 20123354
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To review a single surgeon experience of transitioning to a robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy program (RALP) with prior pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) experience.

Materials And Methods: A retrospective review of surgical results from a single surgeon performing LRP transitioning to RALP was performed. Two hundred five patients undergoing RALP by a single, fellowship-trained, urologic oncologist were analyzed and compared with 45 patients undergoing LRP by the same surgeon. Operative, pathologic, and functional outcomes were evaluated. Validated questionnaires, including the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), were utilized for assessing urinary and sexual parameters.

Results: Preoperative parameters (age, PSA, Gleason score) were similar in both RALP and LRP groups. Operative time (190 vs. 299 minutes), estimated blood loss (253 vs. 299 ml), and length of stay (1.6 vs. 2.6 days) were reduced in RALP vs. LRP. Although not statistically significant, there was a trend toward fewer transfusions with RALP (2.0% vs. 4.4%) as well as a lower positive margin rate in organ-confined (pT2) disease (9.8%, RALP vs. 20%, LRP). Continence at 12 months was 94% following RALP as opposed to 82% after LRP. In preoperatively potent men undergoing bilateral nerve sparing procedures, RALP conferred 81% potency at 12 months as opposed to only 62% following LRP.

Conclusions: The transition from LRP to RALP, in concert with an institutional commitment to a successful robotic surgery program, has yielded superior operative, oncologic, and functional results.

Citing Articles

Comparison of retropubic, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: who is the winner?.

Basiri A, de la Rosette J, Tabatabaei S, Woo H, Laguna M, Shemshaki H World J Urol. 2018; 36(4):609-621.

PMID: 29362896 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2174-1.


Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Is More Beneficial for Prostate Cancer Patients: A System Review and Meta-Analysis.

Du Y, Long Q, Guan B, Mu L, Tian J, Jiang Y Med Sci Monit. 2018; 24:272-287.

PMID: 29332100 PMC: 5776881. DOI: 10.12659/msm.907092.


Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: first experience of 15 cases.

Tugcu V, Akca O, Simsek A, Yigitbasi I, Sahin S, Tasci A Turk J Urol. 2017; 43(4):476-483.

PMID: 29201511 PMC: 5687211. DOI: 10.5152/tud.2017.35488.


Evaluation of Incontinence after Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Using the International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire Short Form and Noting the Number of Safety Pads Needed by Japanese Patients.

Hikita K, Honda M, Kawamoto B, Tsounapi P, Muraoka K, Sejima T Yonago Acta Med. 2017; 60(1):52-55.

PMID: 28331422 PMC: 5355845.


Peer Review and Surgical Innovation: Robotic Surgery and Its Hurdles.

Vyas D, Cronin S Am J Robot Surg. 2016; 2(1):39-44.

PMID: 27517092 PMC: 4978176. DOI: 10.1166/ajrs.2015.1018.