Abstract
Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) using the da Vinci® surgical platform has become very popular in recent years, accounting for over 70 % of all radical prostatectomies performed in the United States in 2008 [1, 2]. Its postulated advantages over the conventional open approach include better intraoperative dexterity and visualization of periprostatic tissue architecture with up to 12-fold optical magnification for the surgeon, while patients experience less intraoperative blood loss, less painful recovery, and shorter hospital stays [3]. However, despite innovations in surgical techniques, surgeons are still faced with the daily dilemma of balancing complete cancer clearance while striving for potency preservation during surgery. In several series, 20–50 % of patients still remain impotent at 1 year following nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (RP) [4–6].
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Lepor H. Status of radical prostatectomy in 2009: is there medical evidence to justify the robotic approach? Rev Urol. 2009;11(2):61–70.
Zorn KC, et al. Training, credentialing, proctoring and medicolegal risks of robotic urological surgery: recommendations of the society of urologic robotic surgeons. J Urol. 2009;182(3):1126–32.
Yates DR, Vaessen C, Roupret M. From Leonardo to da Vinci: the history of robot-assisted surgery in urology. BJU Int. 2011;108(11):1708–13; discussion 1714.
Audouin M, et al. Erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy: pathophysiology, evaluation and treatment. Prog Urol. 2010;20(3): 172–82.
Litwin MS, et al. Sexual function and bother after radical prostatectomy or radiation for prostate cancer: multivariate quality-of-life analysis from CaPSURE. Cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavor. Urology. 1999;54(3):503–8.
Tewari A, et al. Nerve sparing can preserve orgasmic function in most men after robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2012;109(4):596–602.
Tewari AK, et al. Anatomical grades of nerve sparing: a risk-stratified approach to neural-hammock sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). BJU Int. 2011;108(6 Pt 2):984–92.
Dasgupta P, Kirby RS. Outcomes of robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol. 2009;16(3):244–8.
Yates DR, et al. To infinity and beyond: the robotic toy story. Eur Urol. 2011;60(2):263–5.
Long JA, et al. Use of robotics in laparoscopic urological surgery: state of the art. Prog Urol. 2006;16(1):3–11.
Eastham JA, Scardino PT, Kattan MW. Predicting an optimal outcome after radical prostatectomy: the trifecta nomogram. J Urol. 2008;179(6):2207–10; discussion 2210–1.
Patel VR, et al. Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2011;59(5):702–7.
Ficarra V, et al. Systematic review of methods for reporting combined outcomes after radical prostatectomy and proposal of a novel system: the survival, continence, and potency (SCP) classification. Eur Urol. 2012;61(3):541–8.
Salomon L, et al. Combined reporting of cancer control and functional results of radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2003;44(6):656–60.
Bianco Jr FJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Radical prostatectomy: long-term cancer control and recovery of sexual and urinary function (“trifecta”). Urology. 2005;66(5 Suppl):83–94.
Saranchuk JW, et al. Achieving optimal outcomes after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(18):4146–51.
Pierorazio PM, et al. Preoperative risk stratification predicts likelihood of concurrent PSA-free survival, continence, and potency (the trifecta analysis) after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 2007;70(4):717–22.
Ploussard G, et al. Prospective evaluation of combined oncological and functional outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: trifecta rate of achieving continence, potency and cancer control at 2 years. BJU Int. 2011;107(2):274–9.
Shikanov SA, et al. Trifecta outcomes after robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Urology. 2009;74(3):619–23.
Patel VR, et al. Continence, potency and oncological outcomes after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: early trifecta results of a high-volume surgeon. BJU Int. 2010;106(5):696–702.
Novara G, et al. Trifecta outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2011;107(1):100–4.
Xylinas E, et al. Evaluation of combined oncologic and functional outcomes after robotic-assisted laparoscopic extraperitoneal and radical prostatectomy: trifecta rate of achieving continence, potency and cancer control. Urol Oncol. 2011. http://www.urologiconcology.org/article/S1078-1439%2810%2900334-0/abstract
Schroeck FR, et al. Satisfaction and regret after open retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008;54(4):785–93.
Hong YM, et al. Impact of radical prostatectomy positive surgical margins on fear of cancer recurrence: results from CaPSURE. Urol Oncol. 2010;28(3):268–73.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag London
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chopra, S., Srivastava, A., Sooriakumaran, P., Tewari, A.K. (2013). Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: The Technique. In: Tewari, A. (eds) Prostate Cancer: A Comprehensive Perspective. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2864-9_58
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2864-9_58
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-2863-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-2864-9
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)