Review – Prostate CancerRetropubic, Laparoscopic, and Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Cumulative Analysis of Comparative Studies☆
Introduction
The increase in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, combined with a reduction in the threshold of indications for prostate biopsy and the greater number of samples taken, has contributed to an increase in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. This has led to earlier diagnosis, to downstaging of the disease, and to an increase in the number of patients presenting with clinically organ-confined disease. This, in turn, has led to an increase in the number of candidates for radical prostatectomy (RP) [1].
RP is a common treatment for patients with clinically localised prostate cancer (cT1–cT2) and life expectancy >10 yr [2]. RP has been associated with complications and sequelae, including intraoperative blood loss, postoperative urinary incontinence, and erectile dysfunction. However, the improvements in the knowledge of the anatomy of Santorini's dorsal venous complex and of cavernous nerves have led to significant updates of the surgical technique and to the standardisation of the anatomic retropubic RP (RRP), as described by Walsh in 1982 [3]. Since then, many authors have provided important contributions to the optimisation of the surgical technique, with the purposes of reducing short-term and long-term complications and of improving functional results both in terms of urinary continence [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and of erectile function [9], [10], [11].
With the intent of reducing the invasiveness of traditional open surgery and improving functional results, since 1999 several European authors have developed the technique of laparoscopic RP (LRP) [12], [13]. Subsequently, there has been a slow but consistent increase in the popularity of LRP in many countries worldwide. Specifically, the data of the Laparoscopic Working Group of the Germany Urological Association show that in 2002, 15% of the German and Swiss centres performed LRP, with only 5% having completed >15 cases. In 2004, 19.2% of the German urologic centres offered LRP, with 26.9% and 60.6% of the patients undergoing perineal RP and RRP, respectively [14]. Further data from the same multicentre cooperation show that in 2006, >5800 LRP had been performed by 50 different surgeons in Germany [14].
The shift from open to laparoscopic surgery represented a completely new experience for surgeons, who were exposed to the surgical anatomy through a different perspective and were required to learn new operative procedures and to deal with new surgical tools. More specifically, surgeons faced a steep learning curve associated with the restrictions related to LRP, including the reduction of the range of motion (ie, only 4 df), two-dimensional (2D) vision, impaired eye–hand coordination (ie, misorientation between real and visible movements), and reduced haptic sense (ie, only minimal tactile feedback) [13], [15].
Robotic systems have recently been introduced in an attempt to reduce the difficulty involved in performing complex laparoscopic urologic procedures, particularly for nonlaparoscopic surgeons [16], [17]. The presence of three-dimensional (3D) magnification and tools with 7 df that are able to duplicate hand movements with high accuracy have allowed many urologists to hypothesise that, despite the absence of tactile feedback, the application of robotic surgery to RP might yield real advantages, not only in terms of shorter learning curves but also in the ability to improve functional results without impairment of early oncologic outcomes [15].
Robot-assisted laparoscopic RP (RALP) began in 2000, with the first cases performed by Binder et al in Frankfurt, Germany, [18] and by Abbou et al in Creteil, France [19]. Menon et al standardised the RALP technique by describing the Vattikuti Institute Prostatectomy (VIP) [20], which led to significant popularity of RALP both in the United States and in Europe.
Despite the wide diffusion of LRP and RALP over the past 5 yr in Europe and the United States, only a few studies comparing the results of the new approaches to the classical retropubic technique are currently available. The purpose of the present systematic review and cumulative analysis was to evaluate the perioperative, functional, and oncologic results deriving from the comparative studies evaluating RRP, LRP, and RALP.
Section snippets
Evidence acquisition
A literature search was performed in January 2008 using the Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The Medline search included only a “free-text” protocol using the term radical prostatectomy across the “Title” and “Abstract” fields of the records. Subsequently, the following limits were used: humans, gender (male), and language (English). The searches of the Embase and Web of Science databases used the same free-text protocol and the same key words, applying no limits. We took into
Statistical analyses
Cumulative analysis was conducted using the Review Manager v.4.2, software designed for composing Cochrane Reviews (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). Specifically, statistical heterogeneity was tested using the χ2 test. A p value <0.10 was used to indicate heterogeneity. In case of lack of heterogeneity, fixed-effects models were used for the cumulative analysis. Random effects models were used in case of heterogeneity. The results were expressed as weighted means and standard deviations for
Conclusions
Although pure LRPs and RALPs are followed by significantly lower blood loss and transfusion rates and have all traditional advantages of a minimally invasive procedure, the data from this systematic review did not allow us to prove the superiority of any surgical approach in terms of functional and oncologic outcomes. To be strict, however, it might be hypothesised that more solid and accurate studies could show some differences that do not currently appear. It is likely that the most critical
References (103)
- et al.
Early detection of prostate cancer in 2007. Part 1: PSA and PSA kinetics
Eur Urol
(2008) - et al.
EAU guidelines on prostate cancer
Eur Urol
(2008) - et al.
Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention
J Urol
(1982) Improving the exposure of the prostate in radical retropubic prostatectomy: longitudinal bunching of the deep venous plexus
J Urol
(1989)- et al.
Impact of anatomical radical prostatectomy on urinary continence
J Urol
(1991) - et al.
Preservation of putative continence nerves during radical retropubic prostatectomy leads to more rapid return of urinary continence
Urology
(1998) Continence-preserving anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy
Urology
(2000)- et al.
Intussusception of the reconstructed bladder neck leads to earlier continence after radical prostatectomy
Urology
(2002) Radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer provides durable cancer control with excellent quality of life: a structured debate
J Urol
(2000)- et al.
Improving the preservation of the urethral sphincter and neurovascular bundles during open radical retropubic prostatectomy
Eur Urol
(2005)
Open retropubic nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy
Eur Urol
Laparoscopic and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy – critical analysis of the results
Eur Urol
Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy – the experience of the German laparoscopic working group
Eur Urol
Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes
J Urol
Evidence from robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review
Eur Urol
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
Intra- and peri-operative outcomes comparing radical retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: results from a prospective, randomised, single-surgeon study
Eur Urol
Radical retropubic versus laparoscopic prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of functional outcome
Urology
Prospective comparison of short-term convalescence: laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy
Urology
Comparison of quality of life following laparoscopic and open prostatectomy for prostate cancer
J Urol
Recovery of quality of life in year after laparoscopic or retropubic radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional longitudinal study
Urology
Morbidity of laparoscopic extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal radical prostatectomy verus open retropubic radical prostatectomy
Eur Urol
Changes in quality of life in first year after radical prostatectomy by retropubic, laparoscopic, and perineal approach: multi-institutional longitudinal study in Japan
Urology
Comprehensive prospective comparative analysis of outcomes between open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy conducted in 2003 to 2005
J Urol
Is laparoscopic radical prostatectomy better than traditional retropubic radical prostatectomy? An analysis of peri-operative morbidity in two contemporary series in Italy
Eur Urol
Perioperative morbidity of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared with open radical retropubic prostatectomy
Urol Oncol
Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in men older than 70 years of age with localized prostate cancer: comparison of morbidity, reconvalescence, and short-term clinical outcomes between younger and older men
Eur Urol
Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. preliminary pathologic evaluation
Urology
Radical prostatectomy by the retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic approach: 12 years of experience in one center
Eur Urol
Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution
J Urol
Location of positive surgical margins after retropubic, perineal, and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for organ-confined prostate cancer
Urology
Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience
Urology
Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of postoperative pain
J Urol
Intraoperative blood loss and transfusion requirements for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy
Urology
Comparison of length of hospital stay between radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy
J Urol
Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon's outcomes
Urology
Perioperative complications of laparoscopic and robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
J Urol
A direct comparison of robotic assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single institution experience
J Urol
Intraoperative and postoperative complications of radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1000 cases
J Urol
Intraoperative and perioperative morbidity of contemporary radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1243 patients: results of a single center between 1999 and 2002
Eur Urol
Potency, continence, and complications in 3477 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies
J Urol
Complications of open radical retropubic prostatectomy in potential candidates for active monitoring
Urology
Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 550 procedures
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol
Nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: replicating the open surgical technique
Urology
Making ends meet: a cost comparison of laparoscopic and open radical retropubic prostatectomy
J Urol
Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective evaluation of 600 cases
J Urol
Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: oncological and functional results after 700 procedures
J Urol
Nerve sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: our technique
Eur Urol
Oncologic outcome and continence recovery after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: 3 years’ follow-up in a “second generation center”
Eur Urol
Complications, urinary continence, and oncologic outcome of 1000 laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomies—experience at the Charité Hospital Berlin, Campus Mitte
Eur Urol
Cited by (824)
Initial experience of laparoendoscopic single-site radical prostatectomy with a novel purpose-built robotic system
2023, Asian Journal of UrologyRobot-assisted surgery in urology
2024, Journal of the Korean Medical AssociationModerate Intra-Abdominal Pressure Levels in Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Seem to Have No Negative Impact on Clinical Outcomes
2024, Journal of Clinical MedicineEarly and late urinary continence outcomes after unilateral and bilateral nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A retrospective multicentre cohort study in Japan (the MSUG94 group)
2024, International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted SurgeryEffect of fast-track surgery on postoperative wound pain in patients with prostate cancer: A meta-analysis
2024, International Wound Journal
- ☆
Please visit www.eu-acme.org/europeanurology to read and answer questions on-line. The EU-ACME credits will then be attributed automatically.