BACKGROUND: The use of radical prostatectomy for the treatment of prostate cancer has been increasing during the last decade partially due to the widespread adoption of the robotic-assisted laparoscopic technique. Although no prospective, randomized controlled trials have compared open radical prostatectomy (ORP) with robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP), numerous comparative studies have been retrospectively conducted. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed to clarify the role and advancement of RALRP. Studies comparing ORP with RALRP that measured outcomes of cancer control, urinary and sexual function, and complications were included. A nonsystematic review was utilized to describe the advancements in the techniques used for RALRP. RESULTS: RALRP is the procedure of choice when treating localized prostate cancer. This preference is due to the observed improvement in morbidity rates, as evidenced by decreased rates of blood loss and postoperative pain and similar oncological outcomes when compared with ORP. Robotic assistance during surgery is continually being modified and the techniques advanced, as evidenced by improved nerve sparing for preserving potency and reconstruction of the bladder neck to help in the early recovery of urinary continence. CONCLUSIONS: Morbidity rates should continue to improve with the advancement of minimally invasive techniques for radical prostatectomy. The adoption of robotic assistance during surgery will continue as the applications of robotic-assisted surgery expand into other solid organ malignancies.
BACKGROUND: The use of radical prostatectomy for the treatment of prostate cancer has been increasing during the last decade partially due to the widespread adoption of the robotic-assisted laparoscopic technique. Although no prospective, randomized controlled trials have compared open radical prostatectomy (ORP) with robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP), numerous comparative studies have been retrospectively conducted. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed to clarify the role and advancement of RALRP. Studies comparing ORP with RALRP that measured outcomes of cancer control, urinary and sexual function, and complications were included. A nonsystematic review was utilized to describe the advancements in the techniques used for RALRP. RESULTS: RALRP is the procedure of choice when treating localized prostate cancer. This preference is due to the observed improvement in morbidity rates, as evidenced by decreased rates of blood loss and postoperative pain and similar oncological outcomes when compared with ORP. Robotic assistance during surgery is continually being modified and the techniques advanced, as evidenced by improved nerve sparing for preserving potency and reconstruction of the bladder neck to help in the early recovery of urinary continence. CONCLUSIONS: Morbidity rates should continue to improve with the advancement of minimally invasive techniques for radical prostatectomy. The adoption of robotic assistance during surgery will continue as the applications of robotic-assisted surgery expand into other solid organ malignancies.
Authors: Rohan Nandurkar; Pimmeke van Leeuwen; Phillip Stricker; Henry Woo; Rajdeep Kooner; Carlo Yuen; Gordon O'Neill; David Ende; Thomas Cusick; Bao Ho; Adam Hickey; Louise Emmett Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-01-23 Impact factor: 3.039