Revolutionizing radical prostatectomy - a comparative study of traditional and modern automated surgical techniques
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/JEHS.2023.24.01.007Keywords
Prostatectomy, Radical prostatectomy, Prostate cancer, SurgeryAbstract
Introduction and purpose:
Prostate cancer is a common malignancy seen worldwide and second most common cancer among Polish men as well as globally. The symptoms of prostate cancer depend on severity of the cancer. Prostate cancer diagnosis is typically established through physical examination- digital rectal examination (DRE), PSA (prostate specific antigen) testing and confirmed by histopathological examination. The choice of treatment method depends on many factors: disease severity, risk assessment (based on PSA, TNM and Gleason score), age of the patient and expected survival time. Treatment include surgery, hormone therapy, radiation therapy or chemotherapy. In some cases, the combination of methods can be used to achieve better outcomes.
One of available treatment option is radical prostatectomy which includes open radical prostatectomy (ORP), laparoscopic and laparoscopic robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). We aimed at presenting various outcomes comparing open radical prostatectomy and robot assisted radical prostatectomy.
State of knowledge:
In order to carry out the review of the topic we began to collect information and comprehensive research in PubMed database. The analysis focused on the treatment of prostate cancer especially radical prostatectomy methods, the course of surgical procedure, postoperative care, oncological results, intraoperative and postoperative complications.
Conclusion:
ORP and RARP ae two surgical procedures used in prostate cancer treatment. Both of them involve removal of the prostate gland but also have a multiplicity of differences. RARP is safe and less invasive alternative to ORP with shorter postoperative hospitalization. However, ORP is known for no necessity for expensive specialized equipment such as Da Vinci or Versius robot surgery system and shorter operative time.
References
Samuel W. D. Merriel, Garth Funston, Willie Hamilton. Prostate Cancer in Primary Care. 2018 Aug 10. doi: 10.1007/s12325-018-0766-1; PMCID: PMC6133140; PMID: 30097885
Rosen R, Altwein J, Boyle P, et al. Lower urinary tract symptoms and male sexual dysfunction: the multinational survey of the aging male (MSAM-7) Eur Urol. 2003;44(6):637–649. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2003.08.015.
Bruyninckx R, Buntinx F, Aertgeerts B, Van Casteren V. The diagnostic value of macroscopic haematuria for the diagnosis of urological cancer in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2003;53(486):31–35; PMCID: PMC1314489;
Hamilton W, Sharp D. Symptomatic diagnosis of prostate cancer in primary care: a structured review. Br J Gen Pract. 2004;54(505):617–21; PMCID: PMC1324845
Schmid HP, Prikler L, Sturgeon CM, Semjonow A. Diagnosis of prostate cancer: the clinical use of prostate specific antigen. EAU Update Ser. 2003;1(1):3–8. doi: 10.1016/S1570-9124(03)00003-5.
Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):876–892. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.049; PMID: 23787356.
Spahn M, et al. Outcome predictors of radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate-specific antigen greater than 20 ng/ml: a European multi-institutional study of 712 patients. Eur Urol. 2010;58:1–7. discussion 10-1; PMID: 20299147.
Hendrik van Poppel,∗ Wouter Everaerts, Lorenzo Tosco, and Steven Joniau, Open and robotic radical prostatectomy. Asian J Urol. 2019 Apr; 6(2): 125–128. 2018 Dec 8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2018.12.002. PMCID: PMC6488736. PMID: 31061797
Stolzenburg JU, Schwalenberg T, Horn LC, et al. Anatomical landmarks of radical prostatecomy. Eur Urol 2007;51:629-39. 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.11.012
Eastham JA. Surgery Insight: optimizing open nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy techniques for improved outcomes. Nat Clin Pract Urol 2007;4:561-9. 10.1038/ncpuro0916
Graefen M, Walz J, Huland H. Open retropubic nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2006;49:38-48. 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.10.008
Burkhard FC, Kessler TM, Fleischmann A, et al. Nerve sparing open radical retropubic prostatectomy--does it have an impact on urinary continence? J Urol 2006;176:189-95. 10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00574-X
Eastham J, Tokuda Y, Scardino P. Trends in radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol 2009;16:151-60. 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2008.02178.x
Khoder WY, Waidelich R, Buchner A, et al. Prospective comparison of one year follow-up outcomes for the open complete intrafascial retropubic versus interfascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Springerplus 2014;3:335. 10.1186/2193-1801-3-335
Health Quality Ontario. Robotic Surgical System for Radical Prostatectomy: A Health Technology Assessment. Published online 2017 Jul 7. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2017; 17(11): 1–172. PMCID: PMC5515322. PMID: 28744334
Jeong Man Cho, Kyong Tae Moon, and Tag Keun Yoo. Robotic Simple Prostatectomy: Why and How? Int Neurourol J. 2020 Mar; 24(1): 12–20. Published online 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.5213/inj.2040018.009. PMCID: PMC7136446
Dotzauer, A. La Torre, A. Thomas, M. P. Brandt, K. Böhm, R. Mager, H. Borgmann, W. Jäger, M. Kurosch, T. Höfner, C. Ruckes, A. Haferkamp & I. Tsaur. Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy versus open simple prostatectomy: a single-center comparison RWorld Journal of Urology volume 39, pages149–156 (2021). Published: 28 March 2020
Rodrigo FrotaBurak TurnaRodrigo BarrosInderbir S. Gill. Comparison of radical prostatectomy techniques: open, laparoscopic and robotic assisted. Int. braz j urol. 34 (3) • June 2008 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538200800030000
Ahmed K, Ibrahim A, Wang TT et al. Assessing the cost effectiveness of robotics in urological surgery – a systematic review. BJU Int. 110(10),1544–1556 (2012).
Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA 302(14),1557–1564 (2009).
Link BA, Nelson R, Josephson DY et al. The impact of prostate gland weight in robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 180(3),928–932 (2008).
Lei Y, Alemozaffar M, Williams SB et al. Athermal division and selective suture ligation of the dorsal vein complex during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of technique and outcomes. Eur. Urol. 59(2),235–243 (2011).
Freire MP, Weinberg AC, Lei Y et al. Anatomic bladder neck preservation during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of technique and outcomes. Eur. Urol. 56(6),972–980 (2009).
Kowalczyk KJ, Huang AC, Hevelone ND et al. Stepwise approach for nerve sparing without countertraction during robot-assisted radical prostate
Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int. 92(3),205–210 (2003).
Shikanov S, Desai V, Razmaria A, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL. Robotic radical prostatectomy for elderly patients: probability of achieving continence and potency 1 year after surgery. J. Urol. 183(5),1803–1807 (2010).
Novara G, Ficarra V, D‘Elia C et al. Preoperative criteria to select patients for bilateral nerve-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. J. Sex. Med. 7(2 Pt 1),839–845 (2010).
Fajkovic H, Cha EK, Xylinas E et al. Disease-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in upper tract urothelial carcinoma. World J. Urol. 31(1),5–11 (2012).
Wiltz AL, Shikanov S, Eggener SE et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy in overweight and obese patients: oncological and validated-functional outcomes. Urology 73(2),316–322 (2009).
Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int. 92(3),205–210 (2003).
Carlsson S, Nilsson AE, Schumacher MC, et al. Surgery-related complications in 1253 robot-assisted and 485 open retropubic radical prostatectomies at the Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden. Urology 2010;75:1092-7. 10.1016/j.urology.2009.09.075
Tward JD, Lee CM, Pappas LM, et al. Survival of men with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with prostatectomy, brachytherapy, or no definitive treatment: impact of age at diagnosis. Cancer 2006;107:2392-400. 10.1002/cncr.22261
Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Hebert AE, Wiklund P. 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),1–15 (2012).
Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Crispen PL et al. The impact of positive surgical margins on mortality following radical prostatectomy during the prostate specific antigen era. J. Urol. 183(3),1003–1009 (2010).
Hsu C.Y., Wildhagen M.F., Van Poppel H., Bangma C.H. Prognostic factors for and outcome of locally advanced prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010;105:1536–1540.
Spahn M., Joniau S., Gontero P., Fieuws S., Marchioro G., Tombal B. Outcome predictors of radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate specific antigen <20 ng/mL. Eur Urol. 2010;58:1–7.
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: 1431-5.
Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet 2016;388:1057-66. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30592-X
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Katarzyna Rojek, Karolina Szala-Czerwonka, Adrian Rejmer, Natalia Woś, Lucjan Bednarz, Karolina Wijas, Kinga Bialic, Rafał Bakalarczyk, Artur Bialic, Paweł Majewski
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The periodical offers access to content in the Open Access system under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 381
Number of citations: 0
