Advertisement

Der Urologe

, Volume 54, Issue 2, pp 178–182 | Cite as

Robotisch assistierte radikale Prostatektomie

  • C. Thomas
  • A. Neisius
  • F.C. Roos
  • C. Hampel
  • J.W. Thüroff
Leitthema

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Die robotisch assistierte laparoskopische radikale Prostatektomie (RALP) hat sich innerhalb kurzer Zeit als Standardeingriff zur Behandlung des organbegrenzten Prostatakarzinoms (PCA) etabliert. Trotz des erhöhten Kostenfaktors werden v. a. Vorteile gegenüber der offenen radikalen Prostatektomie (ORP) in Bezug auf Blutungsrisiko sowie der funktionellen und onkologischen Ergebnisse gesehen. Große prospektiv randomisierte Studien hierzu fehlen allerdings bis heute.

Ziel

In dieser Übersichtsarbeit wird über die aktuelle Datenlage zur RALP berichtet. Zudem wird insbesondere auf Vergleiche zur ORP bezüglich Ergebnis und Komplikation eingegangen. Insbesondere wird der Stellenwert der RALP bei organüberschreitenden/aggressiven PCA thematisiert.

Ergebnisse

Nach Durchsicht der aktuellen Literatur bietet die RALP gegenüber der ORP Vorteile in Bezug auf Kontinenz und Potenz. Auch die Rate an positiven Absetzungsrändern scheint, zumindest bei organbegrenzten PCA, geringer zu sein. Allerdings ist die Datenlage bei organüberschreitenden Tumoren kontrovers. Bezüglich der onkologischen Langzeitergebnisse scheint die RALP mit der ORP vergleichbar zu sein.

Schlüsselwörter

Prostatakarzinom Prostatektomie, offene radikale Ergebnisse, funktionelle Ergebnisse, onkologische Lymphadenektomie 

Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy

Abstract

Background

Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) has been rapidly adopted as a standard approach for surgical treatment of organ-confined prostate cancer. Despite additional costs, RALP seems to provide better functional and oncological outcomes and less blood loss compared to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). However, prospective randomized studies are still missing.

Purpose

Based on the current literature, this review reports about the role of RALP in prostate cancer treatment. Its functional and oncologic outcomes as well as complication rates are compared to ORP. Particularly, the role of RALP in nonorgan-confined tumors will be discussed.

Results

Based on the current literature, RALP provides better continence and potency rates as compared to ORP. Moreover, the incidence of positive surgical margins seems to be reduced. However, there is conflicting data regarding the role of RALP in nonorgan-confined prostate cancer. Regarding long-term oncologic outcomes, RALP seems to be comparable to ORP.

Keywords

Prostate neoplasms Prostatectomy, open radical Outcome, functional Outcome, oncological Lymph node excision 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt. C. Thomas, A. Neisius, F.C. Roos, C. Hampel und J.W. Thüroff geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht. Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Binder J, Kramer W (2001) Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 87(4):408–410CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Skarecky DW (2013) Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy after the first decade: surgical evolution or new paradigm. ISRN Urol 2013:157379PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kibel AS, Ciezki JP, Klein EA et al (2012) Survival among men with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol. 187:1259–1265Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Merino T, San Francisco IF, Rojas PA et al (2013) Intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus radical prostatectomy in patients with localized prostate cancer: long-term follow-up. BMC Cancer 13:530CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mullins JK, Feng Z, Trock BJ et al (2012) The impact of anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy on cancer control: the 30-year anniversary. J Urol 188:2219–2224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Diaz M, Peabody JO, Kapoor V et al (2014) Oncologic outcomes at 10 yeras following robotic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol (Im Druck). doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.025Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Isbarn H, Wanner M, Salomon G et al (2009) Long-term data on the survival of patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy in the prostate-specific antigen era. BJU Int 106:37–43CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62(3):382–404CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coelho RF, Rocco B, Patel MB et al (2010) Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a critical review of outcomes reported by high-volume centers. J Endourol 24:2003–2015CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA et al (2012) Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:1–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Magheli A, Gonzalgo ML, Su LM et al (2011) Impact of surgical technique (open vs laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted) on pathological and biochemical outcomes following radical prostatectomy: an analysis using propensity score matching. BJU Int 107:1956–1962CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lightfoot AJ, Su YK, Sehgal SS et al (2014) Positive surgical margin trends in patients with pathologic T3 prostate cancer treated with robot assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 65(3):521–531Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Park J, Yoo DS, Song C (2014) Comparison of oncological outcomes between retropubic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an analysis stratified by surgical experience. World J Urol 32:193–199CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mattei A, Die Pierro GB, Grande P et al (2013) Standardized and simplified extended pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: the monoblock technique. Urology 81:446–450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yuh BE, Ruel NH, Mejia R et al (2013) Standardized comparison of robot-assited limited and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer. BJU Int 112:81–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gandaglia G, Trinh QD, Hu JC et al (2014) The impact of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy on the use and extend of pelvic lymph node disseciton in the „post-dissemination“ period. Eur J Surg Oncol 40:1080–1086CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang EH, Yu JB, Gross CP et al (2014) Variation in pelvic lymph node dissection among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy by hospital characteristics and surgical approach: resutls from the National Cancer Database. J Urol (Epub ahead of print). doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.09.011Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:405–417CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering T et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:418–430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:431–452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Thomas
    • 1
  • A. Neisius
    • 1
  • F.C. Roos
    • 1
  • C. Hampel
    • 1
  • J.W. Thüroff
    • 1
  1. 1.Klinik und Poliklinik für UrologieUniversitätsmedizin MainzMainzDeutschland

Personalised recommendations