Complications of robotic assisted radical prostatectomy
Robotic radical prostatectomy claims optimal oncologic results, minimal morbidity and best outcomes of urinary continence and erection function. Potential benefits concerning side effects and complications compared to open radical prostatectomy are analysed.
Out of 450 robotic radical prostatectomies performed, the last 210 patients aged 64 (41–78), PSA of 7.2 ng/ml (0.6–75) and body mass index of 27 (20–37) were assessed in detail using the Clavien’s classification of surgical complications. In addition, a retrospective Medline based meta-analysis of 4,928 patients from eight centres involved was performed and compared to published data of open retropubic radical prostatectomy.
In total 55/210 (26%) of the patients had complications, whereof 48/55 (87%) were minor (Clavien’s grade I–IIIa). Complications (IIIb and IVa) with open reoperations occured in 7/210 (3%) of the patients including three bleedings, two incarcerated small bowels, one perforation of a sigmoid diverticle and one trocar hernia. No IVb or V complication occured. Overall robotic complication rate is very low and appears to be even less than in open series. Minor and major complications seem to decrease after 200 individual console surgeries.
Robotic radical prostatectomy has proven to be a safe and reproducible surgical treatment with low morbidity. We encourage further trials using the same classification of complications to evaluate the morbidity of robotic prostatectomy conclusively in the near future.
KeywordsComplications Prostatectomy Robotic prostatectomy da Vinci-Prostatectomy
Conflict of interest statement
There is no conflict of interest.
- 14.John H, Gettman MT (2007) Extraperitoneal robotic radical prostatectomy: operative technique—step by step. In: Stolzenburg J-U (ed) Endoscopic radical prostatectomy. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 144–159Google Scholar
- 16.Zorn KC, Gofrit ON, Orvieto MA, Mikhail AA, Galocy RM, Shalhav AL, Zagaja GP (2007) 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 21:1341–1344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Augustin H, Hammerer P, Graefen M, Palisaar J, Noldus J, Fernandez S, Huland H (2003) Intraoperative and perioperative morbidity of contemporary radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1243 patients: results of a single center between 1999 and 2002. Eur Urol 43:113–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Cathelineau X, Rozet F, Vallancien G (2004) Robotic radical prostatectomy: the European experience. Urol Clin North Am 31:693–699, viiiGoogle Scholar
- 31.El-Hakim A, Tewari A (2004) Robotic prostatectomy: a review. MedGenMed 6:20. (online)Google Scholar
- 32.Mc Neill A, Wasserscheid J, Rabenalt R, Do M, Liatsikos EN, Stolzenburg JU (2008) Reduction in incidence of lymphocele following extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy and PLND by bilateral peritoneal fenestration. Eur Urol Suppl 7(3):302Google Scholar