Zusammenfassung
Hintergrund
Die robotisch assistierte laparoskopische radikale Prostatektomie (RALP) hat sich innerhalb kurzer Zeit als Standardeingriff zur Behandlung des organbegrenzten Prostatakarzinoms (PCA) etabliert. Trotz des erhöhten Kostenfaktors werden v. a. Vorteile gegenüber der offenen radikalen Prostatektomie (ORP) in Bezug auf Blutungsrisiko sowie der funktionellen und onkologischen Ergebnisse gesehen. Große prospektiv randomisierte Studien hierzu fehlen allerdings bis heute.
Ziel
In dieser Übersichtsarbeit wird über die aktuelle Datenlage zur RALP berichtet. Zudem wird insbesondere auf Vergleiche zur ORP bezüglich Ergebnis und Komplikation eingegangen. Insbesondere wird der Stellenwert der RALP bei organüberschreitenden/aggressiven PCA thematisiert.
Ergebnisse
Nach Durchsicht der aktuellen Literatur bietet die RALP gegenüber der ORP Vorteile in Bezug auf Kontinenz und Potenz. Auch die Rate an positiven Absetzungsrändern scheint, zumindest bei organbegrenzten PCA, geringer zu sein. Allerdings ist die Datenlage bei organüberschreitenden Tumoren kontrovers. Bezüglich der onkologischen Langzeitergebnisse scheint die RALP mit der ORP vergleichbar zu sein.
Abstract
Background
Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) has been rapidly adopted as a standard approach for surgical treatment of organ-confined prostate cancer. Despite additional costs, RALP seems to provide better functional and oncological outcomes and less blood loss compared to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). However, prospective randomized studies are still missing.
Purpose
Based on the current literature, this review reports about the role of RALP in prostate cancer treatment. Its functional and oncologic outcomes as well as complication rates are compared to ORP. Particularly, the role of RALP in nonorgan-confined tumors will be discussed.
Results
Based on the current literature, RALP provides better continence and potency rates as compared to ORP. Moreover, the incidence of positive surgical margins seems to be reduced. However, there is conflicting data regarding the role of RALP in nonorgan-confined prostate cancer. Regarding long-term oncologic outcomes, RALP seems to be comparable to ORP.
Literatur
Binder J, Kramer W (2001) Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 87(4):408–410
Skarecky DW (2013) Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy after the first decade: surgical evolution or new paradigm. ISRN Urol 2013:157379
Kibel AS, Ciezki JP, Klein EA et al (2012) Survival among men with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol. 187:1259–1265
Merino T, San Francisco IF, Rojas PA et al (2013) Intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus radical prostatectomy in patients with localized prostate cancer: long-term follow-up. BMC Cancer 13:530
Mullins JK, Feng Z, Trock BJ et al (2012) The impact of anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy on cancer control: the 30-year anniversary. J Urol 188:2219–2224
Diaz M, Peabody JO, Kapoor V et al (2014) Oncologic outcomes at 10 yeras following robotic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol (Im Druck). doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.025
Isbarn H, Wanner M, Salomon G et al (2009) Long-term data on the survival of patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy in the prostate-specific antigen era. BJU Int 106:37–43
Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62(3):382–404
Coelho RF, Rocco B, Patel MB et al (2010) Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a critical review of outcomes reported by high-volume centers. J Endourol 24:2003–2015
Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA et al (2012) Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:1–15
Magheli A, Gonzalgo ML, Su LM et al (2011) Impact of surgical technique (open vs laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted) on pathological and biochemical outcomes following radical prostatectomy: an analysis using propensity score matching. BJU Int 107:1956–1962
Lightfoot AJ, Su YK, Sehgal SS et al (2014) Positive surgical margin trends in patients with pathologic T3 prostate cancer treated with robot assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 65(3):521–531
Park J, Yoo DS, Song C (2014) Comparison of oncological outcomes between retropubic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an analysis stratified by surgical experience. World J Urol 32:193–199
Mattei A, Die Pierro GB, Grande P et al (2013) Standardized and simplified extended pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: the monoblock technique. Urology 81:446–450
Yuh BE, Ruel NH, Mejia R et al (2013) Standardized comparison of robot-assited limited and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer. BJU Int 112:81–88
Gandaglia G, Trinh QD, Hu JC et al (2014) The impact of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy on the use and extend of pelvic lymph node disseciton in the „post-dissemination“ period. Eur J Surg Oncol 40:1080–1086
Wang EH, Yu JB, Gross CP et al (2014) Variation in pelvic lymph node dissection among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy by hospital characteristics and surgical approach: resutls from the National Cancer Database. J Urol (Epub ahead of print). doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.09.011
Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:405–417
Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering T et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:418–430
Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:431–452
Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien
Interessenkonflikt. C. Thomas, A. Neisius, F.C. Roos, C. Hampel und J.W. Thüroff geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht. Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Thomas, C., Neisius, A., Roos, F. et al. Robotisch assistierte radikale Prostatektomie. Urologe 54, 178–182 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-014-3665-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-014-3665-3
Schlüsselwörter
- Prostatakarzinom
- Prostatektomie, offene radikale
- Ergebnisse, funktionelle
- Ergebnisse, onkologische
- Lymphadenektomie