Current Urology Reports

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 152–158 | Cite as

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Published series

  • András Hoznek
  • David B. Samadi
  • Laurent Salomon
  • Alexandre de la Taille
  • Leif E. Olsson
  • Clément-Claude Abbou


Next to the retropubic and perineal approaches, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy has become the third most common technique in the surgical treatment of localized prostate cancer. Although long-term oncologic data are still lacking, based on several contemporary series, it seems likely that oncologic results will fulfill expectations. Over the past decade, quality-of-life issues have come into the spotlight in oncologic surgery in particular. In this regard, the aim of the laparoscopic technique is to become the best in terms of operative stress, postoperative morbidity, catheterization time, and return to normal activities. The unique intraoperative visibility and magnification of the operative field allow ultraprecise dissection and suturing of vital neural and sphincteric structures. Will the use of this new kind of surgery translate into better functional results? The goal of this review is to analyze the published results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in the context of its rapidly evolving open surgical counterpart.


Radical Prostatectomy Bladder Neck Localize Prostate Cancer Urethral Stricture Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Sung GT, Gill IS: Laparoscopic adrenalectomy. Semin Laparosc Surg 2000, 7:211–222.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kavoussi LR, Schuessler WW, Vancaillie TG, Clayman RV: Laparoscopic approach to the seminal vesicles. J Urol 1993, 150:417–419.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology 1997, 50:854–857.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Barret E, et al.: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: technical and early oncological assessment of 40 operations. Eur Urol 1999, 36:14–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abbou CC, Salomon L, Hoznek A, et al.: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: preliminary results. Urology 2000, 55:630–634.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rassweiler J, Sentker L, Seemann O, et al.: Heilbronn laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: technique and results after 100 cases. Eur Urol 2001, 40:54–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bollens R, Vanden Bossche M, Roumeguere T, et al.: Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: results after 50 cases. Eur Urol 2001, 40:65–69. The authors describe their original technique of purely extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. This is an indispensable work allowing us to understanding the advantages and inconveniences of different laparoscopic approaches.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Türk I, Deger S, Winkelmann B, et al.: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: technical aspects and experience with 125 cases. Eur Urol 2001, 40:46–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gill IS, Zippe CD: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: technique. Urol Clin North Am 2001, 28:423–436.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Walsh PC: Patient-reported urinary continence and sexual function after anatomic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2000, 164:242.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Benoit RM, Naslund MJ, Cohen JK: Complications after radical retropubic prostatectomy in the medicare population. Urology 2000, 56:116–120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoznek A, Salomon L, Olsson LE, et al.: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Créteil experience. Eur Urol 2001, 40:38–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Doublet JD, Vallancien G: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the lessons learned. J Endourol 2001, 15:441–445. The latest update of the largest laparoscopic series worldwide.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rassweiler J, Sentker L, Seemann O, et al.: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique: an analysis of the first 180 cases. J Urol 2001, 166:2101–2108. The authors describe their results of a slightly modified laparoscopic approach. Although the patient population differs significantly from other laparoscopic series, there is an interesting discussion of possible explanations of the different outcomes that different techniques create.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dillioglugil O, Leibman BD, Leibman NS, et al.: Risk factors for complications and morbidity after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 1997, 157:1760–1767.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hautmann RE, Sauter TW, Wenderoth UK: Radical retropubic prostatectomy: morbidity and urinary continence in 418 consecutive cases. Urology 1994, 43:47–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hammerer P, Hubner D, Gonnermann D, Huland H: Perioperative and postoperative complications of pelvic lymphadenectomy and radical prostatectomy in 320 consecutive patients [in German]. Urologe A 1995, 34:334–342.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Türk I, Deger IS, Winkelmann B, et al.: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience with 145 interventions [in German]. Urologe A 2001, 40:199–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Catalona WJ, Carvalhal GF, Mager DE, Smith DS: Potency, continence and complication rates in 1,870 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol 1999, 162:433–438.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Avant OL, Jones JA, Beck H, et al.: New method to improve treatment outcomes for radical prostatectomy. Urology 2000, 56:658–662.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lepor H, Nieder AM, Ferrandino MN: Intraoperative and postoperative complications of radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1,000 cases. J Urol 2001, 166:1729–1733.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hoznek A, Salomon L, Rabii R, et al.: Vesicourethral anastomosis during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the running suture method. J Endourol 2000, 14:749–753.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Souto CA, Teloken C, Souto JC, et al.: Experience with early catheter removal after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 2000, 163:865–866.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Little JS, Jr, Bihrle R, Foster RS: Early urethral catheter removal following radical prostatectomy: a pilot study. Urology 1995, 46:429–431.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nadu A, Salomon L, Hoznek A, et al.: Early removal of the catheter after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2001, 166:1662–1664.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schulam PG, Link RE: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 2000, 18:278–282.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bates TS, Wright MP, Gillatt DA: Prevalence and impact of incontinence and impotence following total prostatectomy assessed anonymously by the ICS-male questionnaire. Eur Urol 1998, 33:165–169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Olsson LE, Salomon L, Nadu A, et al.: Prospective patient-reported continence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2001, 58:570–572.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wei JT, Dunn RL, Marcovich R, et al.: Prospective assessment of patient reported urinary continence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2000, 164:744–748.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fowler FJ, Jr, Barry MJ, Lu-Yao G, et al.: Patient-reported complications and follow-up treatment after radical prostatectomy. The National Medicare Experience: 1988–1990 (updated June 1993). Urology 1993, 42:622–629.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wieder JA, Soloway MS: Incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 1998, 160:299–315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Iocca A, et al.: Use of Gleason score, prostate specific antigen, seminal vesicle and margin status to predict biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2001, 165:119–125.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Huland H, Hammerer P, Henke RP, Huland E: Preoperative prediction of tumor heterogeneity and recurrence after radical prostatectomy for localized prostatic carcinoma with digital rectal, examination prostate specific antigen and the results of 6 systematic biopsies. J Urol 1996, 155:1344–1347.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Blute ML, Bostwick DG, Bergstralh EJ, et al.: Anatomic sitespecific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology 1997, 50:733–739.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Carter HB, Sauvageot J, Walsh PC, Epstein JI: Prospective evaluation of men with stage T1C adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1997, 157:2206–2209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fusco MA, Paluzzi MW: Abdominal wall recurrence after laparoscopic-assisted colectomy for adenocarcinoma of the colon. Report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum 1993, 36:858–861.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Alexander RJ, Jaques BC, Mitchell KG: Laparoscopically assisted colectomy and wound recurrence. Lancet 1993, 341:249–250.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Milsom JW, Bohm B, Hammerhofer KA, et al.: A prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic versus conventional techniques in colorectal cancer surgery: a preliminary report. J Am Coll Surg 1998, 187:46–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Moul JW, Bauer JJ, Srivastava S, et al.: Perineal seeding of prostate cancer as the only evidence of clinical recurrence 14 years after needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy: molecular correlation. Urology 1998, 51:158–160.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Teh BS, Chou CC, Schwartz MR, et al.: Perineal prostatic cancer seeding following radioactive seed brachytherapy. J Urol 2001, 166:212.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Haddad FS: Re: risk factors for perineal seeding of prostate cancer after needle biopsy. J Urol 1990, 143:587–588.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Abi Aad AS, Noel H, Lorge F, et al.: Do seminal or prostatic secretions play a role in local recurrence after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer? Eur Urol 1993, 24:471–473.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Oefelein MG, Kaul K, Herz B, et al.: Molecular detection of prostate epithelial cells from the surgical field and peripheral circulation during radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1996, 155:238–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mansfield JT, Stephenson RA: Does transurethral resection of the prostate compromise the radical treatment of prostate cancer? Semin Urol Oncol 1996, 14:174–177.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Madaan S, Abel PD: Urethral metastasis after transurethral resection of a malignant prostate. BJU Int 2001, 88:308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kobayashi T, Fukuzawa S, Oka H, et al.: Isolated recurrence of prostatic adenocarcinoma to the anterior urethra after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2000, 164:780.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • András Hoznek
    • 1
  • David B. Samadi
    • 1
  • Laurent Salomon
    • 1
  • Alexandre de la Taille
    • 1
  • Leif E. Olsson
    • 1
  • Clément-Claude Abbou
    • 1
  1. 1.Service d’UrologieCHU Henri MondorCréteilFrance

Personalised recommendations