Literature DB >> 20036784

Downsides of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: limitations and complications.

Declan G Murphy1, Anders Bjartell, Vincenzo Ficarra, Markus Graefen, Alexander Haese, Rodolfo Montironi, Francesco Montorsi, Judd W Moul, Giacomo Novara, Guido Sauter, Tullio Sulser, Henk van der Poel.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) using the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) is now in widespread use for the management of localised prostate cancer (PCa). Many reports of the safety and efficacy of this procedure have been published. However, there are few specific reports of the limitations and complications of RALP.
OBJECTIVE: The primary purpose of this review is to ascertain the downsides of RALP by focusing on complications and limitations of this approach. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A Medline search of the English-language literature was performed to identify all papers published since 2001 relating to RALP. Papers providing data on technical failures, complications, learning curve, or other downsides of RALP were considered. Of 412 papers identified, 68 were selected for review based on their relevance to the objective of this paper. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: RALP has the following principal downsides: (1) device failure occurs in 0.2-0.4% of cases; (2) assessment of functional outcome is unsatisfactory because of nonstandardised assessment techniques; (3) overall complication rates of RALP are low, although higher rates are noted when complications are reported using a standardised system; (4) long-term oncologic data and data on high-risk PCa are limited; (5) a steep learning curve exists, and although acceptable operative times can be achieved in <20 cases, positive surgical margin (PSM) rates may require experience with >80 cases before a plateau is achieved; (6) robotic assistance does not reduce the difficulty associated with obese patients and those with large prostates, middle lobes, or previous surgery, in whom outcomes are less satisfactory than in patients without such factors; (7) economic barriers prevent uniform dissemination of robotic technology.
CONCLUSIONS: Many of the downsides of RALP identified in this paper can be addressed with longer-term data and more widespread adoption of standardised reporting measures. The significant learning curve should not be understated, and the expense of this technology continues to restrict access for many patients.
Copyright © 2009 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20036784     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.12.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  23 in total

1.  A new standard for radical prostatectomy in Ireland?

Authors:  D G Murphy
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2012-01-11       Impact factor: 1.568

2.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP): a new way to training.

Authors:  Raphael Rocha; Rossano Kepler Alvim Fiorelli; Gilberto Buogo; Maurício Rubistein; Rogério Moraes Mattos; Rodrigo Frota; Rafael Ferreira Coelho; Kenneth Palmer; Vipul Patel
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2015-12-11

3.  Factors predicting prolonged operative time for individual surgical steps of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP): A single surgeon's experience.

Authors:  Abdullah M Alenizi; Roger Valdivieso; Emad Rajih; Malek Meskawi; Cristian Toarta; Marc Bienz; Mounsif Azizi; Pierre Alain Hueber; Hugo Lavigueur-Blouin; Vincent Trudeau; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Assaad El-Hakim; Kevin C Zorn
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 4.  Robot-assisted prostatectomy: the new standard of care.

Authors:  Gencay Hatiboglu; Dogu Teber; Markus Hohenfellner
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2011-02-02       Impact factor: 3.445

5.  [Radical prostatectomy. Detection and management of intra- and postoperative complications].

Authors:  M Saar; C H Ohlmann; M Janssen; M Stöckle; S Siemer
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 0.639

6.  Adverse effects of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy among a nationwide random sample of medicare-age men.

Authors:  Michael J Barry; Patricia M Gallagher; Jonathan S Skinner; Floyd J Fowler
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-01-03       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 7.  Comparison of perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes between standard laparoscopic and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xing Huang; Lei Wang; Xinmin Zheng; Xinghuan Wang
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Initial consecutive 125 cases of robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy performed in Ireland's first robotic radical prostatectomy centre.

Authors:  D M Bouchier-Hayes; K X Clancy; K Canavan; P J O'Malley
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2011-10-28       Impact factor: 1.568

9.  Low Tidal Volume Positive End-Expiratory Pressure versus High Tidal Volume Zero-Positive End-Expiratory Pressure and Postoperative Pulmonary Functions in Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Murat Haliloglu; Beliz Bilgili; Mehtap Ozdemir; Tumay Umuroglu; Nurten Bakan
Journal:  Med Princ Pract       Date:  2017-10-31       Impact factor: 1.927

10.  Specific learning curve for port placement and docking of da Vinci(®) Surgical System: one surgeon's experience in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  F Dal Moro; S Secco; C Valotto; W Artibani; F Zattoni
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2011-09-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.