Ankur A Shah1, Jeffrey C Gahan2, Igor Sorokin3. 1. Division of Urology, Albany Medical Center, Albany, NY, USA. 2. Department of Urology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 3. Department of Urology, University of Massachusetts, 119 Belmont St, Worcester, MA, 01605, USA. igsorokin@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Recent advancements in minimally invasive approaches for prostate surgery have provided numerous options for surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). In the setting of a large prostate, an open simple prostatectomy was previously considered the gold standard surgical treatment. However, the recently updated American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines on surgical management of BPH now consider both open and minimally invasive approaches to simple prostatectomy viable alternatives for treating large glands, depending on expertise with the techniques. The purpose of our review is to discuss the minimally invasive robot-assisted approach and compare it to the classic open approach to simple prostatectomy. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite longer operative times, the robotic approach is associated with shorter hospital stay and lower morbidity profile. The morbidity of an open approach remains significant. Blood transfusions are 3-4 times as likely compared to a robotic approach and major complications are twice as likely. Consistent with previous literature, our review shows functional outcome improvements like flow rate and symptom score to be comparable between the robotic and open approach. The amount of adenoma resected and PSA decline is also similar among robotic and open cases. Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy is a safe and effective procedure for BPH secondary to a large prostate gland. Appropriately, it is no longer deemed "investigational" by the latest AUA guidelines on BPH and recommended as an alternative to the open approach.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Recent advancements in minimally invasive approaches for prostate surgery have provided numerous options for surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). In the setting of a large prostate, an open simple prostatectomy was previously considered the gold standard surgical treatment. However, the recently updated American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines on surgical management of BPH now consider both open and minimally invasive approaches to simple prostatectomy viable alternatives for treating large glands, depending on expertise with the techniques. The purpose of our review is to discuss the minimally invasive robot-assisted approach and compare it to the classic open approach to simple prostatectomy. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite longer operative times, the robotic approach is associated with shorter hospital stay and lower morbidity profile. The morbidity of an open approach remains significant. Blood transfusions are 3-4 times as likely compared to a robotic approach and major complications are twice as likely. Consistent with previous literature, our review shows functional outcome improvements like flow rate and symptom score to be comparable between the robotic and open approach. The amount of adenoma resected and PSA decline is also similar among robotic and open cases. Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy is a safe and effective procedure for BPH secondary to a large prostate gland. Appropriately, it is no longer deemed "investigational" by the latest AUA guidelines on BPH and recommended as an alternative to the open approach.
Authors: Kevin T McVary; Claus G Roehrborn; Andrew L Avins; Michael J Barry; Reginald C Bruskewitz; Robert F Donnell; Harris E Foster; Chris M Gonzalez; Steven A Kaplan; David F Penson; James C Ulchaker; John T Wei Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Riccardo Autorino; Homayoun Zargar; Mirandolino B Mariano; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; René J Sotelo; Piotr L Chlosta; Octavio Castillo; Deliu V Matei; Antonio Celia; Gokhan Koc; Anup Vora; Monish Aron; J Kellogg Parsons; Giovannalberto Pini; James C Jensen; Douglas Sutherland; Xavier Cathelineau; Luciano A Nuñez Bragayrac; Ioannis M Varkarakis; Daniele Amparore; Matteo Ferro; Gaetano Gallo; Alessandro Volpe; Hakan Vuruskan; Gaurav Bandi; Jonathan Hwang; Josh Nething; Nic Muruve; Sameer Chopra; Nishant D Patel; Ithaar Derweesh; David Champ Weeks; Ryan Spier; Keith Kowalczyk; John Lynch; Andrew Harbin; Mohan Verghese; Srinivas Samavedi; Wilson R Molina; Emanuel Dias; Youness Ahallal; Humberto Laydner; Edward Cherullo; Ottavio De Cobelli; David D Thiel; Mikael Lagerkvist; Georges-Pascal Haber; Jihad Kaouk; Fernando J Kim; Estevao Lima; Vipul Patel; Wesley White; Alexander Mottrie; Francesco Porpiglia Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-12-04 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Paolo Umari; Nicola Fossati; Giorgio Gandaglia; Morgan Pokorny; Ruben De Groote; Nicolas Geurts; Marijn Goossens; Peter Schatterman; Geert De Naeyer; Alexandre Mottrie Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-09-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: T Casey McCullough; Flavio L Heldwein; Shawn J Soon; Marc Galiano; Eric Barret; Xavier Cathelineau; Dominique Prapotnich; Guy Vallancien; François Rozet Journal: J Endourol Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Soum D Lokeshwar; Benjamin T Harper; Eric Webb; Andre Jordan; Thomas A Dykes; Durwood E Neal; Martha K Terris; Zachary Klaassen Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2019-10
Authors: Dor Golomb; Fernanda Gabrigna Berto; Jennifer Bjazevic; Jose A Gomez; Joseph L K Chin; Patrick P Luke; Stephen E Pautler Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2021-08-26 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: R 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 Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-03-28 Impact factor: 4.226