Skip to main content

Difficulties in Robotic Radical Prostatectomy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Difficult conditions in laparoscopic urologic surgery

Abstract

The task of learning robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) can be quite challenging for both novice and experienced open or laparoscopic surgeons alike. Therefore, prior to the first procedure, adequate training and planning is required as the entire surgical team prepares for the upcoming challenge. The learning curve to achieve basic competency has been estimated to be between 20 and 25 cases.1, 2 However, during the initial stage of the learning curve, the surgeon should screen potential operative candidates cautiously to minimize the technical challenges of the procedure by selecting “ideal candidates” so that the surgical team can ease into the experience. As the experience of the surgeon and robotic team develops, one can begin to entertain the idea of tackling more challenging clinical scenarios, as studies have shown that difficult cases were attempted after performing a median of 50 procedures.3

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. 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(3):945-949.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Perer E, Lee D, Ahlering T, Clayman R. Robotic revelation: laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by a nonlaparoscopic surgeon. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;10:1738-1741.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lavery H, Palmer KJ, Coughlin G, Patel VR. The advanced learning curve in robotic prostatectomy: a multi-institutional survey. J Endourol. 2007;21(Suppl 1):8-61.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Venkatesh V, Landman J, Sundaram CP, et al. Prevention, recognition, and management of laparoscopic complications in urologic surgery. AUA Update Ser. 2003;12(40):322-331.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Litwiller JP, Wells RE Jr, Halliwill JR, et al. Effect of lithotomy positions on strain of the obturator and lateral femoral cutaneous nerves. Clin Anat. 2004;17:45-49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tewari A, Rao SR. Anatomical foundations and surgical manoeuvres for precise identification of the prostatovesical junction during robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2006;98:833-837.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mulhall JP, Slovick R, Hotaling J, et al. Erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy: hemodynamic profiles and their correlation with the recovery of erectile function. J Urol. 2002;167(3):1371-1375.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rogers CG, Trock BP, Walsh PC. Preservation of accessory pudendal arteries during radical retropubic prostatectomy: surgical technique and results. Urology. 2004;64(1):148-151.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Matin SF. Recognition and preservation of accessory pudendal arteries during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2006;67(5):1012-1015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Secin FP, Touijer K, Mulhall J, Guillonneau B. Anatomy and preservation of accessory pudendal arteries in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2007;51(5):1229-1235.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Edwards RA, Lee DI, Skarecky DW. Robotic radical prostatectomy: a technique to reduce pT2 positive margins. Urology. 2004;64(6):1224-1228.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nguyen MM, Turna B, Santos BR, et al. The use of an endoscopic stapler vs suture ligature for dorsal vein control in laparoscopic prostatectomy: operative outcomes. BJU Int. 2008;101(4):463-466.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Campenni MA, Harmon JD, Ginsberg PC, Harkaway RC. Improved continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy using two pubo-urethral suspension stitches. Urol Int. 2002;68(2):109-112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Shalhav AL, Orvieto MA, Chien GW, Mikhail AA, Zagaja GP, Zorn KC. Minimizing knot tying during reconstructive laparoscopic urology. Urology. 2006;68(3):508-513.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Anderson KR, Clayman RV. Laparoscopic lower urinary tract reconstruction. World J Urol. 2000;18:349-354.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manoj B. Patel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Patel, M.B., Chauhan, S., Palmer, K.J., Patel, V.R. (2011). Difficulties in Robotic Radical Prostatectomy. In: Al-Kandari, A., Gill, I. (eds) Difficult conditions in laparoscopic urologic surgery. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-105-7_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-105-7_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-84882-104-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-84882-105-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics