Abstract
Debates about a preferred surgical approach are not new for radical prostatectomy nor limited to this surgical procedure. The relative merits of retropubic versus perineal radical prostatectomy have been considered and discussed for over 50 years and each approach still has its proponents. Pure laparoscopic and robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) are now not only feasible but widely practiced, further expanding the options and debate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Cathelineau X, Rozet F, Vallancien G. Robotic radical prostatectomy: the European experience. Urol Clin North Am 2004;31:693–699.
Hoznek A, Antiphon P, Borkowski T, et al. Assessment of surgical technique and perioperative morbidity associated with extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2003;61:617–622.
Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody JO, et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy, a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy for management of localized carcinoma of the prostate: experience of over 1100 cases. Urol Clin North Am 2004;31:701–717.
Smith JA Jr. Robotically assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: an assessment of its contemporary role in the surgical management of localized prostate cancer. Am J Surg 2004;188:63S–67S.
Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the montsouris technique. J Urol 2000;163:1643–1649.
Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Edwards RA, Lee DI, Skarecky DW. Robotic radical prostatectomy: a technique to reduce pT2 positive margins. Urology 2000;55:630–633.
Farnham S, Webster TM, Herrell SD, Smith JA Jr. Intraoperative blood loss and transfusion requirement for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2006; 67(2):360–363.
Van Velthoven RF, Ahlering TE, Peltier A, Skarecky DW, Clayman RV. Technique for laparoscopic running urethrovesical anastomosis: the single knot method. Urology 2003;61:699–702.
Smith JA Jr. Outcome after radical prostatectomy depends on surgical technique but not approach. Curr Urol Rep 2002;3:179–181.
Webster T, Herrell SD, Chang SS, et al. Roboticassisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a prospectively assessment of postoperative pain. J Urol 2005; 174:912–914.
Salomon L, Anastasiadis AG, Katz R, et al. Urinary continence and erectile function: a prospective evaluation of functional results after radical laparoscopic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2002;42: 338–343.
Su LM, Lind RE, Bhayani SB, Sullivan W, Pavlovich CP. Nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: replicating the open surgical technique. Urology 2004;64:123–127.
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.
Herrell SD, Smith JA Jr. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: what is the learning curve? Urology 2005;66:105–107.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag London Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Smith, J.A. (2007). Principles and Lessons in a Transition from Open to Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy. In: Patel, V.R. (eds) Robotic Urologic Surgery. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-704-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-704-6_6
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-84628-545-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-84628-704-6
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)