Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: The Technique

Chapter

Abstract

Radical prostatectomy (RP) is the most effective treatment for localized prostate cancer and the treatment recommended by the majority of urologists to their patients [1]. The retropubic route is most commonly used as the anatomy is more familiar and it allows synchronous pelvic lymphadenectomy and always permits removal of a large prostate intact. In contrast with perineal prostatectomy, the retropubic approach is not associated with an incidence of postoperative fecal incontinence. The motivation behind developing laparoscopic RP (LRP) lay in the wish to expand the number of patients who might benefit from the claimed generic advantages of laparoscopic surgery, namely, less postoperative pain and a shorter convalescence. LRP also appeared to greatly reduce intraoperative blood loss and provided the surgeon with a consistently evenly illuminated and magnified view of the pelvic anatomy and suggested the possibility of superior results through superior vision. Subsequent publications have quashed this hope [2] and have demonstrated a clear link between surgical volume and patient outcomes but no advantage of LRP or robot-assisted LRP in terms of oncological or functional superiority.

Keywords

Catheter Ischemia Foam Heparin Syringe 

References

  1. 1.
    Catalona WJ, Carvalhal GF, Mager DE, Smith DS. Potency, continence and complication rates in 1,870 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol. 1999;162(2):433–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Touijer K, Eastham JA, Secin FP, et al. Comprehensive prospective comparative analysis between open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy conducted in 2003 to 2005. J Urol. 2008;179(5):1811–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology. 1997;50(6):854–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris experience. J Urol. 2000;163(2):418–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weber HM, Eschholz G, Gunnewig M, Krah XA, Benken N. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy?-not for us! J Urol Suppl. 2001;165:616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van Velthoven R, Peltier A, Hawaux E, Vandewalle J-C. Transperitoneal laparoscopic anatomical radical prostatectomy: preliminary results. J Urol. 2000;163:621A.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eden CG, Cahill D, Vass JA, Adams TH, Dauleh MI. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the initial UK series. BJU Int. 2002;90(9):876–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guillonneau B, Rozet F, Cathelineau X, et al. Perioperative complications of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris 3-year experience. J Urol. 2002;167(1):51–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Licht MR, Klein EA, Tuason L, et al. Impact of bladder neck preservation during radical prostatectomy on continence and cancer control. Urology. 1994;44:883.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rassweiler J, Wagner AA, Moazin M, et al. Anatomic nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: comparison of retrograde and antegrade techniques. Urology. 2006;68(3):587–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walsh PC. Chapter 86: Anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan Jr ED, Wein AJ, editors. Campbell’s urology, vol. III. 7th ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders; 1997. p. 2565–88.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Velthoven RF, Ahlering TE, Peltier A, Skarecky DW, Clayman RV. Technique for laparoscopic running urethrovesical anastomosis: the single knot method. Urology. 2003;61(4):699–702.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyThe Royal Surrey County HospitalGuildford, HampshireUK

Personalised recommendations