Skip to main content


Log in

Impact of a preoperatively estimated prostate volume using transrectal ultrasonography on surgical and oncological outcomes in a single surgeon’s experience with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript



To assess the impact of preoperatively estimated prostate volume (PV) using transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) on surgical and oncological outcomes in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).


We analyzed the experience of a single surgeon at our hospital who performed 436 RARPs without neoadjuvant hormone therapy between August 2006 and December 2013. Patients were divided into three groups according to their preoperative PV calculated using TRUS (PV ≤ 20 cm3: group 1, n = 61; 20 < PV < 50 cm3: group 2, n = 303; PV ≥ 50 cm3: group 3, n = 72).


Blood loss was significantly higher in group 3 than in group 1 and group 2. In stage pT2 patients, the rate of positive surgical margin (PSM) was significantly lower in group 3 than in group 1. In addition, perioperative complications significantly increased with increasing PV, while the extraprostatic extension (EPE) rate significantly decreased with increasing PV. The preoperative biopsy Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density, and clinical T2 stage were inversely correlated with increasing PV. Biochemical recurrence-free survival after RARP was significantly lower in group 1 than in groups 2 and 3.


A large prostate size was significantly associated with increased blood loss and a higher rate of perioperative complications. A small prostate size was associated with a higher PSM rate, PSA density, Gleason score, EPE rate, and biochemical recurrence rate. These results suggest that RARP was technically challenging in patients with large prostates, whereas small prostates were associated with unfavorable oncological outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Martinez CH, Chalasani V, Lim D, Nott L, Al-Bareeq RJ, Wignall GR, Stitt L, Pautler SE (2010) Effect of prostate gland size on the learning curve for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does size matter initially? J Endourol 24:261–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hsu EI, Hong EK, Lepor H (2003) Influence of body weight and prostate volume on intraoperative, perioperative, and postoperative outcomes after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 61:601–606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rassweiler J, Sentker L, Seemann O, Hatzinger M, Rumpelt HJ (2001) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique: an analysis of the first 180 cases. J Urol 166:2101–2108

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Link BA, Nelson R, Josephson DY, Yoshida JS, Crocitto LE, Kawachi MH, Wilson TG (2008) The impact of prostate gland weight in robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 180:928–932

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Boczko J, Erturk E, Golijanin D, Madeb R, Patel H, Joseph JV (2007) Impact of prostate size in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 21:184–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Zorn KC, Orvieto MA, Mikhail AA, Gofrit ON, Lin S, Schaeffer AJ, Shalhav AL, Zagaja GP (2007) Effect of prostate weight on operative and postoperative outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Urology 69:300–305

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Labanaris AP, Zugor V, Witt JH (2013) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with a pathologic prostate specimen weight ≥100 grams versus ≤50 grams: surgical, oncologic and short-term functional outcomes. Urol Int 90:24–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yadav R, Tu JJ, Jhaveri J, Leung RA, Rao S, Tewari AK (2009) Prostate volume and the incidence of extraprostatic extension: is there a relation? J Endourol 23:383–386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Choo MS, Choi WS, Cho SY, Ku JH, Kim HH, Kwak C (2013) Impact of prostate volume on oncological and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy: robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open retropubic. Korean J Urol 54:15–21

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Hashimoto T, Yoshioka K, Gondo T, Kamoda N, Satake N, Ozu C, Horiguchi Y, Namiki K, Nakashima J, Tachibana M (2013) Learning curve and perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in 200 initial Japanese cases by a single surgeon. J Endourol 27:1218–1223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Patel VR, Tully AS, Holmes R, Lindsay J (2005) Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting–the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol 174:269–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM (1992) Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery 111:518–526

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chang CM, Moon D, Gianduzzo TR, Eden CG (2005) The impact of prostate size in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 48:285–290

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. El-Feel A, Davis JW, Deger S, Roigas J, Wille AH, Schnorr D, Loening S, Hakiem AA, Tuerk IA (2003) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy—an analysis of factors affecting operating time. Urology 62:314–318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Catalona WJ, Smith DS (1994) 5-year tumor recurrence rates after anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 152:1837–1842

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M, Kattan MW, Wheeler T, Maru N, Slawin K, Scardino PT (2008) Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 179:S47–S51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Brockman JA, Alanee S, Vickers AJ, Scardino PT, Wood DP, Kibel AS, Lin DW, Bianco Jr FJ, Rabah DM, Klein EA, Ciezki JP, Gao T, Kattan MW, Stephenson AJ (2014) Nomogram predicting prostate cancer-specific mortality for men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 67(6):1160–1167

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Wheeler TM, Dillioglugil O, Kattan MW, Arakawa A, Soh S, Suyama K, Ohori M, Scardino PT (1998) Clinical and pathological significance of the level and extent of capsular invasion in clinical stage T1-2 prostate cancer. Hum Pathol 29:856–862

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hull GW, Rabbani F, Abbas F, Wheeler TM, Kattan MW, Scardino PT (2002) Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Urol 167:528–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Skolarus TA, Hedgepeth RC, Zhang Y, Weizer AZ, Montgomery JS, Miller DC, Wood DP Jr, Hollenbeck BK (2010) Does robotic technology mitigate the challenges of large prostate size? Urology 76:1117–1121

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Freedland SJ, Isaacs WB, Platz EA, Terris MK, Aronson WJ, Amling CL, Presti JC Jr, Kane CJ (2005) Prostate size and risk of high-grade, advanced prostate cancer and biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy: a search database study. J Clin Oncol 23:7546–7554

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Tomaszewski JE, Wein A (1998) A prostate gland volume of more than 75 cm3 predicts for a favorable outcome after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. Urology 52:631–636

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Foley CL, Bott SR, Thomas K, Parkinson MC, Kirby RS (2003) A large prostate at radical retropubic prostatectomy does not adversely affect cancer control, continence or potency rates. BJU Int 92:370–374

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Newton MR, Phillips S, Chang SS, Clark PE, Cookson MS, Davis R, Fowke JH, Herrell SD, Baumgartner R, Chan R, Mishra V, Blume JD, Smith JA Jr, Barocas DA (2010) Smaller prostate size predicts high grade prostate cancer at final pathology. J Urol 184:930–937

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Msezane LP, Gofrit ON, Lin S, Shalhav AL, Zagaja GP, Zorn KC (2007) Prostate weight: an independent predictor for positive surgical margins during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Can J Urol 14:3697–3701

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


We wish to thank all study participants for their cooperation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jun Nakashima.

Ethics declarations


Yosuke Hirasawa, Yoshio Ohno, Jun Nakashima, Kenji Shimodaira, Takeshi Hashimoto, Tatsuo Gondo, Makoto Ohori, Masaaki Tachibana, and Kunihiko Yoshioka have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hirasawa, Y., Ohno, Y., Nakashima, J. et al. Impact of a preoperatively estimated prostate volume using transrectal ultrasonography on surgical and oncological outcomes in a single surgeon’s experience with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Surg Endosc 30, 3702–3708 (2016).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: