Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Technique and Outcomes of 700 Cases

Overview

Journal Int J Biomed Sci

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2013 May 16

PMID 23675138

Citations 9

Authors

John R Carlucci

Fatima Nabizada-Pace

David B Samadi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Robotic prostatectomy techniques are evolving rapidly as the procedure gains popularity and continues to be compared to the gold standard of open retropubic radical prostatectomy. Our objective is to report the operative technique and outcomes of 700 consecutive robotic radical prostatectomies performed by a single surgeon at Mount Sinai Medical Center between May 2007 and October 2008. Data was prospectively collected in an Internal Review Board (IRB)-approved database.

Surgical Procedure: Key aspects of our technique include 1) dissection of the bladder neck first; 2) minimal to no use of cautery from posterior bladder neck dissection onward; 3) leaving endopelvic fascia intact until after neurovascular bundles dissected; 4) preservation of a wide margin of endopelvic fascia; 5) posterior dissection and nerve-sparing in a medial to lateral direction; 6) cold transection of the dorsal venous complex without prior ligation; and 7) posterior bladder neck reconstruction.

Results: Mean OR time from skin incision to skin closure was 124 minutes [48-266]; mean robotic time was 88 minutes [36-190]. Mean EBL was 69.3ml [5-400]. Mean and median length of stay was 1 day. Overall complication rate was 3.3% with no mortalities and no conversions to open or laparoscopic approaches. The overall positive margin rate (PMR) was 11.9%. PMR was 1.4% for pT2a, 0% for pT2b, 8.3% for pT2c, 39.7% for pT3a, and 56.7% for pT3b. Biochemical recurrence rate at one year was 1.7%. Continence rate by 12 months was 94%. Potency rate by 12 months was 83%.

Conclusions: Both perioperative and postoperative outcomes of our series of robotic prostatectomies performed by a single surgeon at Mount Sinai Medical Center demonstrate the superb outcomes that can be achieved through this modality of treatment.

Citing Articles

[Development of a planned and monitoring robotic assistance and automation for application in orthopedics and trauma surgery].

Reinhold J, Olschewski J, Heilemann L, Seekamp A, Lippross S, Meurer T Chirurgie (Heidelb). 2023; 94(4):312-317.

PMID: 36808497 DOI: 10.1007/s00104-023-01844-7.

Comparative effectiveness of robotic and open radical prostatectomy.

Rodrigues Pessoa R, Maroni P, Kukreja J, Kim S Transl Androl Urol. 2021; 10(5):2158-2170.

PMID: 34159098 PMC: 8185666. DOI: 10.21037/tau.2019.12.01.

Prevalence of post-prostatectomy erectile dysfunction and a review of the recommended therapeutic modalities.

Lima T, Bitran J, Frech F, Ramasamy R Int J Impot Res. 2020; 33(4):401-409.

PMID: 33204007 DOI: 10.1038/s41443-020-00374-8.

A single-center, retrospective review of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy with and without cryopreserved umbilical cord allograft in improving continence recovery.

Ahmed M, Esposito M, Lovallo G J Robot Surg. 2019; 14(2):283-289.

PMID: 31152310 PMC: 7125058. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-019-00972-9.

Risk factors for biochemical recurrence after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: a single surgeon experience.

Tanimoto R, Fashola Y, Scotland K, Calvaresi A, Gomella L, Trabulsi E BMC Urol. 2015; 15:27.

PMID: 25879548 PMC: 4391671. DOI: 10.1186/s12894-015-0024-7.

References

Tewari A, Takenaka A, Mtui E, Horninger W, Peschel R, Bartsch G . The proximal neurovascular plate and the tri-zonal neural architecture around the prostate gland: importance in the athermal robotic technique of nerve-sparing prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2006; 98(2):314-23. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06266.x. View

Zorn K, Gofrit O, Orvieto M, Mikhail A, Galocy R, Shalhav A . Da Vinci robot error and failure rates: single institution experience on a single three-arm robot unit of more than 700 consecutive robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies. J Endourol. 2007; 21(11):1341-4. DOI: 10.1089/end.2006.0455. View

Abbou C, Hoznek A, Salomon L, Olsson L, Lobontiu A, Saint F . Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot. J Urol. 2001; 165(6 Pt 1):1964-6. DOI: 10.1097/00005392-200106000-00027. View

Menon M, Hemal A . Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy: experience in more than 1000 cases. J Endourol. 2004; 18(7):611-9. DOI: 10.1089/end.2004.18.611. View

Badani K, Kaul S, Menon M . Evolution of robotic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 2766 procedures. Cancer. 2007; 110(9):1951-8. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23027. View

Guru K, Perlmutter A, Sheldon M, Butt Z, Zhang S, Tan W . Apical margins after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: does technique matter?. J Endourol. 2009; 23(1):123-7. DOI: 10.1089/end.2008.0398. View

Walsh P, Lepor H, Eggleston J . Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations. Prostate. 1983; 4(5):473-85. DOI: 10.1002/pros.2990040506. View

Joseph J, ROSENBAUM R, Madeb R, Erturk E, Patel H . Robotic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: an alternative approach. J Urol. 2006; 175(3 Pt 1):945-50. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00340-X. View

Nguyen L, Jhaveri J, Tewari A . Surgical technique to overcome anatomical shortcoming: balancing post-prostatectomy continence outcomes of urethral sphincter lengths on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol. 2008; 179(5):1907-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.036. View

10.

SCHUESSLER W, Schulam P, Clayman R, Kavoussi L . Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology. 1998; 50(6):854-7. DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00543-8. View

11.

Patel V, Thaly R, Shah K . Robotic radical prostatectomy: outcomes of 500 cases. BJU Int. 2007; 99(5):1109-12. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06762.x. View

12.

Mottrie A, van Migem P, De Naeyer G, Schatteman P, Carpentier P, Fonteyne E . Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncologic and functional results of 184 cases. Eur Urol. 2007; 52(3):746-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.02.029. View

13.

Catarin M, Manzano G, Nobrega J, Almeida F, Srougi M, Bruschini H . The role of membranous urethral afferent autonomic innervation in the continence mechanism after nerve sparing radical prostatectomy: a clinical and prospective study. J Urol. 2008; 180(6):2527-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.08.020. View

14.

Murphy D, Kerger M, Crowe H, Peters J, Costello A . Operative details and oncological and functional outcome of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: 400 cases with a minimum of 12 months follow-up. Eur Urol. 2009; 55(6):1358-66. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.12.035. View

15.

Box G, Ahlering T . Robotic radical prostatectomy: long-term outcomes. Curr Opin Urol. 2008; 18(2):173-9. DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e3282f517d6. View

16.

Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, Badani K, Fumo M, Bhandari M . Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol. 2006; 51(3):648-57. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.055. View

17.

van der Poel H, de Blok W, Joshi N, van Muilekom E . Preservation of lateral prostatic fascia is associated with urine continence after robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2009; 55(4):892-900. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.01.021. View

18.

van der Poel H, De Blok W . Role of extent of fascia preservation and erectile function after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Urology. 2009; 73(4):816-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2008.09.082. View

19.

Hu J, Wang Q, Pashos C, Lipsitz S, Keating N . Utilization and outcomes of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26(14):2278-84. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.4528. View

20.

Van Velthoven R, Ahlering T, Peltier A, Skarecky D, Clayman R . Technique for laparoscopic running urethrovesical anastomosis:the single knot method. Urology. 2003; 61(4):699-702. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(02)02543-8. View