Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Critical comparison of laparoscopic, robotic, and open radical prostatectomy: techniques, outcomes, and cost

  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Radical prostatectomy has maintained paramount importance in prostate cancer management. Emerging alternative treatments are laparoscopic and robotic prostatectomy. Technical modifications have improved radical prostatectomy outcomes, yet surgery remains difficult to perform regardless of approach. Contemporary series have shown comparable outcomes with operative time, transfusion rates, analgesia, and length of catheterization. Open radical prostatectomy provides excellent long-term oncologic control, but sparse short-term data are available for laparoscopic and robotic prostatectomy. Favorable outcomes also have been reported for urinary control and sexual function, regardless of approach. Additional prospective data collection is needed to evaluate if minimally invasive approaches provide distinct advantages over open surgery.

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

  1. Humphreys MR, Gettman MT, Chow GK, et al.: Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. Mayo Clin Proc 2004, 79:1169–1180.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Zincke H, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML, et al.: Radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: long-term results of 1143 patients from a single institution. J Clin Oncol 1994, 12:2254–2263.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Chang SC, Cole E, Smith JA, et al.: Safety reducing length of stay after open radical retropubic prostatectomy under the guidance of a clinical care pathway. Cancer 2005, 104:747–751.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sved PD, Nieder AM, Manoharan M, et al.: Evaluation of analgesic requirements and postoperative recovery after radical retropubic prostatectomy using long-acting spinal anesthesia. Urology 2005, 65:509–512.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Herrell SD, Smith JA Jr: Laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: What are the real advantages? BJU Int 2005, 95:3–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Webster TM, Herrell SD, Chang SS, et al.: Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of postoperative pain. J Urol 2005, 174:912–914. This recent report compares postoperative pain associated with radical retropubic prostatectomy and da Vinci-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The report found that pain associated with either treatment modality was minimal and that robotic prostatectomy did not provide an advantage in this regard.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ellison LM, Trock BJ, Poe NR, Partin AW: The effect of hospital volume on cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2005, 173:2094–2098.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Guillonneau B, El-Fettouh H, Baumert H, et al.: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological evaluation after 1000 cases at Montsouris institute. J Urol 2003, 169:1261–1266.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 

  12. Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, Do M, et al.: Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: oncological and functional results after 700 procedures. J Urol 2005, 174:1271–1275. This paper provides a detailed description of outcomes associated with extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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. This paper provides a detailed technical description and outcome data for robotic prostatectomy.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 

  15. Gonzalgo ML, Pavlovich CP, Trock BJ, et al.: Classification and trends of perioperative morbidities following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2005, 174:135–139.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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 

  17. DiMarco DS, Ho KL, Leibovich BC, et al.: Early complications and surgical margin status following radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) compared to robotassisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). J Urol 2005, 173(suppl):277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Patel VR, Tully AS, Holmes R, Lindsay J: 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 

  19. Slabaugh TK Jr, Marshall FF: A comparison of minimally invasive open and laparoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 2004, 172:2545–2548.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gill IS, Ukimura O, Rubenstein M, et al.: Lateral pedicle control during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: refined technique. Urology 2005, 65:23–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Su LM, Link RE, Bhayani SB, et al.: Nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: replicating the open surgical technique. Urology 2004, 64:123–127.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Chou D, Skarecky DW: Feasibility study for robotic radical prostatectomy cautery-free neurovascular bundle preservation. Urology 2005, 65:994–997.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chien GW, Mikhail AA, Orvieto MA, et al.: Modified clipless antegrade nerve preservation in robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with validated sexual function evaluation. Urology 2005, 66:419–423.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Link RE, Su LM, Sullivan W, et al.: Health-related quality of life before and after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2005, 173:175–179.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Soderdahl DW, Davis JW, Schellhammer PF, et al.: Prospective, longitudinal comparative study of health-related quality of life in patients undergoing invasive treatments for localized prostate cancer. J Endourol 2005, 19:318–326.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Miller DC, Sanda MG, Dunn RL, et al.: Long-term outcomes among localized prostate cancer survivors: health-related quality of life changes after radical prostatectomy, external radiation, and brachytherapy. J Clin Oncol 2005, 23:2772–2780.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Namiki S, Egawa S, Baba S, et al.: Recovery of quality of life in year after laparoscopic or retropubic radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional, longitudinal study. Urology 2005, 65:517–523.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Saranchuk JW, Kattan MW, Elkin E, et al.: Achieving optimal outcomes after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2005, 23:4146–4151.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ward JF, Slezak JM, Blute ML, et al.: Radical prostatectomy for clinically advanced (cT3) prostate cancer since the advent of prostate-specific antigen testing: 15-year outcome. BJU Int 2005, 95:751–756.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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. This paper provides important early oncologic data following LRP among a cohort of patients treated between 1999 and 2004. Among a group of 500 patients with a mean follow-up of 40 months, PSA progression-free rates were 83% at 3 years and 73% at 5 years.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Brown JA, Rodin D, Lee B, Dahl DM: Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal approach to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: an assessment of 156 cases. Urology 2005, 65:320–324.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ong AM, Su LM, Varkarakis I, et al.: Nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: effects of hemostatic energy sources on the recovery of cavernous nerve function in a canine model. J Urol 2004, 172:1318–1322. Important experimental study showing the adverse impact of energy-based hemostatic aids on recovery of erectile function after prostatectomy. This manuscript stresses the importance of avoiding all forms of cautery when performing nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Esposito MP, Ilbeigi P, Ahmed M, Lanteri V: Use of a fourth arm in da Vinci robot-assisted extraperitoneal laparoscopic prostatectomy: novel technique. Urology 2005, 66:649–652.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Freedland SJ, Haffner MC, Landis PK, et al.: Obesity does not adversely affect health-related quality of life outcomes after anatomic retropubic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2005, 65:1131–1136.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Brown JA, Rodin DM, Lee B, Dahl DM: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and body mass index: an assessment of 151 sequential cases. J Urol 2005, 173:442–445.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Singh A, Fagin R, Shah G, Shekarriz B: Impact of prostate size and body mass index on perioperative morbidity after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2005, 173:552–554.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Edwards R, Skarecky DW: Impact of obesity on clinical outcomes in robotic prostatectomy. Urology 2005, 65:740–744.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Stolzenburg JU, Ho KM, Do M, et al.: Impact of previous surgery on endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. Urology 2005, 65:325–331.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Brown JA, Garlitz C, Gomella LG, et al.: Pathologic comparison of laparoscopic versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens. Urology 2003, 62:481–486.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Fromont G, Cathelineau X, Rozet F, et al.: Impact of margin size on the incidence of local residual tumor after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2004, 172:1845–1847. Important study looking at the presence of residual cancer in the neurovascular bundle in relationship to length of margin positivity during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Twiss C, Slova D, Lepor H: Outcomes for men younger than 50 years undergoing radical prostatectomy. Urology 2005, 66:141–146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Penson DF, 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 

  44. Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Gettman MT: The new economics of radical prostatectomy: cost comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robot assisted techniques. J Urol 2004, 172:1431–1435.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Link RE, Su LM, Bhayani SB, Pavlovich CP: Making ends meet: a cost comparison of laparoscopic and open radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 2004, 172:269–274.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Jayadevappa R, Bloom BS, Chhatre S, et al.: Health-related quality of life and direct medical care cost in newly diagnosed younger men with prostate cancer. J Urol 2005, 174:1059–1064.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Anderson JK, Murdock A, Cadeddu JA, Lotan Y: Cost comparison of laparoscopic versus radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2005, 66:557–560.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Guillonneau B, Vallancien G: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris experience. J Urol 2000, 163:418–422.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Gonda 7S, 200 First Street, SW, 55905, Rochester, MN, USA

    Michael L. Blute MD

Authors
  1. Matthew T. Gettman MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael L. Blute MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael L. Blute MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gettman, M.T., Blute, M.L. Critical comparison of laparoscopic, robotic, and open radical prostatectomy: techniques, outcomes, and cost. Curr Urol Rep 7, 193–199 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-006-0021-1

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-006-0021-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation