Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evolution of Robotic Surgery in the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer

  • Genitourinary Cancer
  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Opinion Statement

Adenocarcinoma of the prostate is the second most common cancer in men in the United States (following only skin cancer) and accounts for 33% of all newly diagnosed male cancers. It is estimated that in 2007, 218,890 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer and 27,050 will die from this disease. While most currently diagnosed prostate cancers are localized, radical prostatectomy remains a gold standard treatment. Since its original description, radical retropubic prostatectomy has evolved over the last three decades to a precise, sophisticated procedure with minimal mortality, and excellent surgical outcomes. However, despite its efficacy, open surgical treatment is inherently associated with blood loss and significant pain. Due to these reasons, many men have sought other, less invasive forms of treatment. With its development in the late 1990s, minimally invasive surgery has significantly and irrevocably changed the surgical treatment of prostate cancer. Robotic-assisted technology has further propelled the utilization of the laparoscopic approach for radical prostatectomy, particularly for non-laparoscopic trained surgeons. The implementation of robotic technology has been rapid. Presently, 7 years after its approval by the FDA, many hospitals have established for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy programs. This trend will undoubtedly continue to grow as more surgeons become familiar with the procedure, more robotic systems become available, and increasingly mature data is published. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy allows patients the benefits of minimally invasive surgery with functional and oncological results comparable to those from open and standard laparoscopic procedures, we believe that this surgical approach will shortly evolve into the standard surgical approach for localized prostate cancer.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (www.seer.cancer.gov). SEER*Stat Database: Incidence – SEER 9 Regs Public-Use, Nov 2004 Sub (1973–2002), National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch, released April 2005, based on the November 2004 submission

  2. Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Meng MV, et al. The changing face of low-risk prostate cancer: trends in clinical presentation and primary management. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:2141–2149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cooperberg MR, Park S, Carroll PR. Prostate cancer 2004: insights from national disease registries. Oncology (Williston Park) 2004;18:1239–1247

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bono AV. The global state of prostate cancer: epidemiology and screening in the second millennium. BJU Int 2004;94(Suppl 3):1–2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cooperberg MR, Moul JW, Carroll PR. The changing face of prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8146–8151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Earle CC, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, et al. Quality of non-breast cancer health maintenance among elderly breast cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:1447–1451

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Speight JL, Roach M. New techniques and management for localized prostate cancer. Rev Urol 2006;8:S22–S29

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Katz AE, Rukstalis DB. Introduction. Recent scientific and technological advances have challenged the traditional treatment options for patients with localized prostate cancer. Urology 2002;60(2 Suppl 1):1–2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Cancer control and quality of life following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy: results at 10 years. J Urol 1994;152(5 Pt 2):1831–1836

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol 1982;128:492–497

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Roehl KA, Han M, Ramos CG, et al. Cancer progression and survival rates following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy in 3,478 consecutive patients: long-term results. J Urol 2004;172:910–914.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Khan MA, Han M, Partin AW, et al. Long-term cancer control of radical prostatectomy in men younger than 50 years of age: update 2003. Urology 2003;62:86–91 discussion, 91–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, et al.: Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2005, 352:1977–1984

    Google Scholar 

This landmark article prospectively evaluates the disease-specific and overall survival in 695 men with prostate cancer who were randomly assigned to either radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting. After a medial followup of 8.2 years, radical prostatectomy was found to significantly reduce disease-specific mortality, overall mortality and the risks of metastasis and local progression.

  1. Rassweiler J, Hruza M, Teber D, et al. Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy-critical analysis of the results. Eur Urol 2006;49:612–624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ficarra V, Cavalleri S, Novara G, et al.: Evidence from robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2007, 51:45–55. discussion 56

    Google Scholar 

This literature search review article is the most current and comprehensive analysis of published RLRP data including oncological, urinary continence and sexual function outcomes.

  1. Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology 1997;50(6):854–857

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial experience and preliminary assessment after 65 operations. Prostate 1999;39(1):71–75

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris technique. J Urol 2000;163(6):1643–1649

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Guillonneau B, el-Fettouh H, Baumert H, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological evaluation after 1,000 cases a Montsouris Institute. J Urol 2003;169(4):1261–1266

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Abbou CC, Salomon L, Hoznek A, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: preliminary results. Urology 2000;55(5):630–634

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Van Velthoven RF, Ahlering TE, Peltier A, et al. Technique for laparoscopic running urethrovesical anastomosis: the single knot method. Urology 2003;61(4):699–702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mendoza-Valdes A: Open vs laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: what have surgeons learned? Presented at the 16th International Prostate Cancer Update; Beaver Creek, CO; 2006

  8. Rassweiler J, Seemann O, Schulze M, et al. Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. J Urol 2003;169:1689–1693

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Guillonneau B, Rozet F, Cathelineau X, et al. Perioperative complications of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris 3-year experience. J Urol 2002;167:51–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Trabulsi E, Guillonneau B. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2005;173:1072–1079

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rassweiler J, Seeman O, Hatzinger M, et al. Technical evolution of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after 45 cases. J Endourol 2003;17:143–154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dillioglugil O, Leibman BD, Leibman NS, et al. Risk factors for complications and morbidity after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 1997;157:1760–1767

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, Do M, et al. Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: oncological and functional result after 700 procedures. J Urol 2005;174:1271–1275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rozet F, Galiano M, Cathenlineau X, et al. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective evaluation of 600 cases. J Urol 2005;174:908–911

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rassweiler J, Stolzenburg J, Sulser T, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy – the experience of the German Laparoscopic Working Group. Eur Urol 2006;49:113–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Eden CG, Moon DA. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: minimum 3-year follow-up of the first 100 patients in the UK. BJU Int 2006;97:981–984

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tewari A, Srivastava A, Menon M et al. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience is one institution. BJU Int 2003;92:205–210

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Patel VR, Tully AS, Holmes R, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting-the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol 2005;174:269–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bhandari A, McIntire L, Kaul SA, et al. Perioperative complications of robotic radical prostatectomy after the learning curve. J Urol 2005;174:915–918

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hu JC, Nelson RA, Wilson TG, et al. Perioperative complications of laparoscopic and robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2006;175:541–546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Joseph JV, Rosenbaum R, Madeb R, et al. Robotic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: an alternative approach. J Urol 2006;175:945–950

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Zorn KC, Gofrit ON, Orvieto MA, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: functional and pathological outcomes with interfascial nerve preservation. Eur Urol 2007;51:755–762;discussion 763

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol 2007;51:648–658.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

This is the largest current series reporting current techniques and RLRP outcomes.

  1. Patel VR, Thaly R, Shah K. Robotic radical prostatectomy: outcomes of 500 cases. BJU Int 2007;99:1109–1112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Lee D, et al. Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2003;170:1738–1741

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Binder J, Kramer W. Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2001;87:408–410

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Tewari A, et al. Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol 2002;168:945–949

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Borin J. Impact of cautery versus cautery-free preservation of neurovascular bundles on early return of potency. J Endourol 2006;20:586–589

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Edwards RA, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy to reduce pT2 positive margins. Urology 2004;64:1224–1228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Intuitive Surgical Web site: http://www.intuitivesurgical.com. Accessed December 10, 2007

  8. Herrell SD, Smith JA. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: what is the learning curve? Urology 2005;66:105–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gofrit ON, Mikhail AA, Zorn KC, et al.: The prevalence of deleterious perceptions and injuries during and after urologic laparoscopic surgeries. Urology 2007, in press

  10. Zorn KC, Gofrit ON, Orvieto MA, et al.: DaVinci robot error and failure rates: single institution experience on a single 3-arm robot unit of over 700 consecutive robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies. J Endourol 2007, in press

  11. Lavery HJ, Thaly RK, Patel VR. Robotic equipment malfunction during robotic prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study. J Urol 2007;177:210 (abstract 627)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Karakewicz PI, Eastham JA, Graefen M, et al. Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in surgically treated prostate cancer: multi-institutional assessment of 5831 patients. Urology 1005;66:1245–1250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ahlering TE, Woo D, Eichel L, et al. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon’s outcomes. Urology 2004;63:819–822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Joseph JV, Vincente I, Madeb R, et al. Robot-assisted vs pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: are there any differences? BJU Int 2005;96:39–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Han M, Partin AW, Chan DY, et al. An evaluation of the decreasing incidence of positive surgical margins in a large retropubic prostatectomy series. J Urol 2004;171:23–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ward JF, Zincke H, Bergstralh EJ, et al. The impact of surgical approach (nerve bundle preservation versus wide local excision) on surgical margins and biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2004;172:1328–1332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Makarov DV, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, et al. Pathological outcomes and biochemical progression in men with T1c prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy with prostate specific antigen 2.6 to 4.0 vs 4.1 to 6.0 ng/mL. J Urol 2006;176:554–558

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rassweiler J, Schulze M, Teber D, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique: oncological results in the first 500 patients. J Urol 2005;173:761–764

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. El-Hakim A, Leung RA, Tewari A. Robotic prostatectomy: a pooled analysis of published literature. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2006;6:11–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

The authors review the published data on RLRP with critical appraisal of outcomes and complications with comparison to RRP and LRP series.

  1. Lepor H: Open versus robotic radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol; Seminars and Original Investigations 2006, 24:91–93

  2. Catalona WJ, Carvalhal GF, Mager DE, et al. Potency, continence and complication rate in 1870 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol 1999;162:433–438

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Walsh P, Marschke P, Ricker D, et al. Patient-reported urinary continence and sexual function after anatomic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2000;55:58–61

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kundu SD, Roehl KA, Eggener SE, et al. Potency, continence and complications in 3477 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol 2004;172:2227–2231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Penson D, McLerran D, Feng Z, et al. 5-year urinary and sexual outcomes after radical prostatectomy: results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Urol 2005;173:1701–1705

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Turk I, Deger S, Winkelmann B, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Technical aspects and experience with 125 cases. Eur Urol 2001;40:46–52

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Vallencien G, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 550 procedures. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2002;43:123–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Doublet JD, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 550 procedures. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2002;43:123–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Katz R, Salomon L, Hoznek A, et al. Patient reported sexual function following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2002;168:2078–2082

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Anantasiadis A, Salomon L, Katz R, et al. Radical retropubic versus laparoscopic prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of functional outcome. Urology 2003;62:292–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Su L, Link R, Bhayani S, et al. Nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: replicating the open surgical technique. Urology 2004;64:123–127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Curto F, Benijits AP, Barmosche S, et al. Nerve sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: our technique. Eur Urol 2006;49:344–352

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Menon M, Kaul S, Bhandari A, et al. Potency following robotic radical prostatectomy: a questionnaire based analysis of outcome after conventional nerve sparing and prostatic fascia sparing techniques. J Urol 2005;174:2291–2296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Skarecky D. Rapid communication: early potency outcomes with cautery-free neurovascular bundle preservation with robotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2005;19:715–718

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Brenner H, Arndt V. Long-term survival rates of patients with prostate cancer in the prostate-specific antigen screening era: population-based estimates for the year 2000 by period analysis. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:441–447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2006. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2006

  17. Walsh RM, Thompson IM. Prostate cancer screening and disease management: how screening may have an unintended effect on survival and mortality – The Camel’s nose effect. J Urol 2007;177:1303–1306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

This article explores the recent observed phenomenon noting that men diagnosed with prostate cancer live as long or longer than those without a diagnosis. This paradox may be explained by the increased preventive and therapeutic health care interventions following a prostate cancer diagnosis.

  1. Lethbridge-Cejku M, Vickerie J: Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2003. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/men/az.htm#stats. Accessed July 24, 2006

  2. Freedland SJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, et al. Risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality following biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA 2005;294:433–439

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hegarty NJ, Gill IS: Robotic Urologic Surgery: An Introduction and Vision for the Future. Robotic Urologic Surgery. Springer; 2007, 1–4

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Ave., MC6038 J-653, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA

    Kevin C. Zorn MD, Ofer N. Gofrit MD, Gary D. Steinberg MD & Arieh L. Shalhav MD

Authors
  1. Kevin C. Zorn MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ofer N. Gofrit MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gary D. Steinberg MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Arieh L. Shalhav MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin C. Zorn MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zorn, K.C., Gofrit, O.N., Steinberg, G.D. et al. Evolution of Robotic Surgery in the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer. Curr. Treat. Options in Oncol. 8, 197–210 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-007-0028-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-007-0028-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation