To review the recent advances in terms of surgical technique and new robotic platforms applied to radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP).
A literature review was performed focusing on original articles on perineal prostatectomy searching via Medline/Pubmed and Embase. The entire spectrum was covered such as development of surgical technique including pelvic lymphadenectomy, adoption of novel surgical platforms, learning curve and future directions.
Surgical removal of the prostate plays a significant role on the treatment of localized prostate cancer (PCa). RPP was the first surgical approach described for radical prostatectomy. This technique declined in popularity secondary to the development of the retropubic approach. Recently, the appearance of novel robotic technology has generated renewed interest in the perineal approach.
There has been a recent resurgence on the interest of radical perineal prostatectomy for the treatment of localized PCa driven by the advent of new robotic surgical technologies into the field. Future studies are needed to better determine the learning curve of the perineal approach and its current role in the treatment of prostate cancer.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A (2018) CA Cancer J Clin 68(6):394–424
Wallis CJD, Saskir R, Choo R et al (2016) Surgery versus radiotherapy for clinically-localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 70(1):21–30
Sanda MG, CAdeddu JA, Kirkby E et al (2018) Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part I: risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options. J Urol 199(3):684–690
Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71(4):618–629
Young HH (1945) The cure of cancer of the prostate by radical perineal prostatectomy (prostate-seminal vesiculectomy): history, literature and statistics of Young’s operation. J Urol 53:188–256
Walsh PC, Lepor H, Eggleston JD (1983) Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations. Prostate 4:473
Gouley JWS (1885) Some points in the surgery of the hypertrophied prostate. Trans Meet Am Surg Assoc 3:163–192
Billroth T. Carcinoma der prostate. Chir Erfahrungen, Zurich 1860-67. Langenbecks Arch Klin Chir Ver Dtsch Z Chir 1869; Bd X, S:548
Young HH (1940) A surgeon’s autobiography. Harcourt, Brace and Co, New York, pp 104–134
Young HH (1905) Conservative perineal prostatectomy: the results of two years experience and report of seventy-five cases. Ann Surg 41(4):549–557
Belt E (1942) Radical perineal prostatectomy in early carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 78:28
Millin T (1958) The surgery of the malignant prostate. Br J Urol 30:407–410
Reiner WB, Walsh PC (1987) An anatomical approach to the surgical management of the dorsal vein and Santorini’s plexus during radical retropubic prostatectomy: the apical dissection. J Urol 138(3):543–550
Weldon VE, Tavel FR (1988) Potency sparing radical perineal prostatectomy: anatomy, surgical technique and initial results. J Urol 140:559–562
Saito S, Murakami G (2003) Radical perineal prostatectomy: a novel approach for lymphadenectomy from perineal incision. J Urol 170:1298–1300
Abbou CC, Hoznek A, Salomon L et al (2000) Remote laparoscopic radical prostatectomy carried out with a robot. Report of a case. Prog Urol 10:520–523
Binder J, Kramer W (2001) Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 87:408–410
Lowrance WT, Eastham JA, Savage C et al (2012) Contemporary open and robotic radical prostatectomy practice patterns among urologist in the United States. J Urol 187:2087–2092
Resnick MI (2003) Radical perineal prostatectomy. BJU 92(6):522–523
Janoff DM, Parra RO (2005) Contemporary appraisal of radical perineal prostatectomy. J Urol 173:1863–1870
Laydner H, Akca O, Autorino R, Eyraud R, Zargar H, Brandao LF, Khalifeh A, Panumatrassamee K, Long JA, Isac W, Stein RJ, Kaouk JH (2014) J Endourol 28(12):1479–1486
Kaouk JH, Akca O, Zargar H, Caputo P, Ramirez D, Andrade H, Albayrak S, Laydner H, Angermeir K (2016) Descriptive technique and initial results for robotic radical perineal prostatectomy. Urology 94:129–138
Akca O, Zargar H, Kaouk JH (2015) Robotic surgery revives radical perineal prostatectomy. Eur Urol 68(2):340–341
Tugku, Akca O, Simsek A et al (2017) Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: first experience of 15 cases. Turk J Urol 43(4):476–483
Tugcu V, Akca O, Simsek A et al (2019) Robot-assisted perineal versus transperitoneal radical prostatectomy: a matched-pair analysis. Turk J Urol. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2019.98254
Ramirez D, Maurice MJ, Kaouk JH (2016) Robotic perineal radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection using a purpose-built single-port robotic platform. BJU Int 118(5):829–833
Bertolo R, Garisto J, Gettman M, Kaouk J (2018) Novel system for robot single-port surgery: feasibility and state of the art in urology. Eur Urol Focus. 4(5):669–673
Kaouk J, Garisto J, Bertolo R (2019) Robotic urologic surgical interventions performed with the single port dedicated platform: first clinical investigation. Eur Urol 123(4):733–739
Gillitzer R, Thuroff JW (2002) Relatavie advantages and disadvantages of radical perineal prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 43(2):167–190
Sullivan LD, Weir MJ, Kinahan JF, Taylor DL (2000) A comparison of the relative merits of radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int 85(1):95–100
Gillitzer R, Thomas C, Wiesner C, Jones J et al (2010) Single Center comparison of anastomotic strictures after radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 76(2):417–422
Matsubara A, Yoneta T, Nakamoto T et al (2007) Inguinal Hernia after radical perineal prostatectomy: comparison with the retropubic approach. Urology 70(6):1152–1156
Frazier HA, Robertson JE, Paulson DF (1992) Radical prostatectomy: the pros and cons of the perineal versus retropubic approach. J Urol 147:888–890
Haab F, Boocon-Gibod L, Delmas V, Toublanc M (1994) Perineal versus retropubic radical prostatectomy for T1, T2 prostate cancer. Br J Urol 74:626–629
Zippe CD, Rackley RR (1996) Non-nerve sparing radical prostatectomy in the elderly patient: perineal vs retropubic approach. J Urol 155(Suppl):284
Lassen PM, Kearse WS (1995) Rectal injuries during radical perineal prostatectomy. Urology 45:266–269
Bishoff JT, Motley G, Optenberg SA et al (1998) Incidence of fecal and urinary incontinence following radical perineal and retropubic prostatectomy in a national population. J Urol 160(2):454–458
Briganti A, Blute ML, Eastham JH et al (2009) Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 55:1251–1265
Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM et al (2001) Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin Tables) for new millennium. Urology 58:843–848
Keller H, Lehmann J, Beier J (2007) Radical perineal prostatectomy and simultaneous extended pelvic lymph node dissection via the same incision. Eur Urol 52:384–388
Matsubara A, Murakami G, Arakawa T et al (2003) Topographic anatomy of the male perineal structures with special reference to perineal approaches for radical prostatectomy. Int Urol 10:141–148
Hsu RL, Kaye AD, Urman RD (2013) Anesthetic challenges in Robotic-assisted urologic surgery. Rev Urol 15:178–184
Wiltz AL, Shikanov S, Eggener SE et al (2009) Robotic radical prostatectomy in overweight and obese patients: oncological and validated-functional outcomes. Urology 73:316–322
Chavali JS, Garisto J, Bertolo R, Agudelo J, Dagenais J, Kaouk J (2018) Robotic radical prostatectomy after aborted prostatectomy: still feasible? The experience from a tertiary care center. J Robot Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-018-0870-x
Harris MJ (2007) The anatomic perineal prostatectomy: an outcomes-based evolution. Eur Urol 52:81–88
Sullivan LD, Weir MJ et al (2000) A comparison of the relative merits of radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int 85:95–100
Comploj E, Palermo S, Trenti E et al (2001) Radical perineal prostatectomy: an outdated procedure? Int J Surg 9:400–403
Vickers A, Bianco F, Serio AM (2007) The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 99(15):1171–1177
Mokulis J, Thompson I (1997) Radical Prostatectomy: is the perineal approach more difficult to learn? J Urol 157(1):230–232
Eliya F, Kernen K, Gonzalez J, Peters K et al (2011) Radical perineal prostatectomy: a learning curve? Int Urol Nephrol 43(1):139–142
Wronski S, Slupski P, Wisniewski P (2012) A Single institution study on patient’s self-reporting appraisal and functional outcomes of the first set of men following radical perineal prostatectomy. Cent Eur J Urol 65(3):124–129
Kaouk J, Garisto J, Etlemamy M, Bertolo R (2019) Pure-single site robot-assisted partial nephrectomy using the sp surgical system: initial clinical experience. Urology 124:282–285
Kaouk J, Bertolo R, Eltemamy M, Garisto J (2019) Single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: first clinical experience using the sp surgical system. Urology 124:309
Kaouk J, Garisto J, Eltemamy M, Bertolo R (2019) Step-by-Step technique for single-port robot-assisted radical cystectomy and pelvic lymph nodes dissection using the da Vinci SP surgical system. BJU Int. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14744
Kaouk J, Garisto J, Eltemamy M, Bertolo R (2019) Single-port robotic intracorporeal ileal conduit urinary diversion during radical cystectomy using the SP surgical system: step-by-step tecnique. Urology 130:196–200
Bertolo R, Garisto J, Eltemamy M, Kaouk J (2019) Pure single-site transperineal robotic radical prostatectomy: first clinical report using the SP surgical system. Eur Urol Suppl 18:e2282
Martis G, Diana M, Ombres M (2007) Retropubic versus perineal radical prostatectomy in early prostate cancer: eight-year experience. J Surg Oncol 95(6):513–518
Conflict of interest
Jihad Kaouk certifies that all conflict of interest, including specific financial interest and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript (e.g., employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties or patents filed, received or pending), are the following: Jihad Kaouk is consulting research for Intuitive Surgical. The rest of the authors (Juan Garisto, Riccardo Bertolo, and Clark A. Wilson) have nothing to disclose.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
This article does not contain any experimental studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
The individual re-identifiable pictures in this article were included with the informed consent of the patient.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Supplement Figure 1. Steps of Single port perineal prostatectomy: A) The posterior aspect of the Denonvilliers fascia identified and incised, B) left prostatic pedicles are clipped and divided, C) transection of the urethra and exposure of the Foley catheter, D) vesicourethral anastomosis, performed according to the Van Velthoven technique (JPEG 927 kb)
About this article
Cite this article
Garisto, J., Bertolo, R., Wilson, C.A. et al. The evolution and resurgence of perineal prostatectomy in the robotic surgical era. World J Urol (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-03004-1
- Perineal prostatectomy
- Prostate cancer
- Single port