Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Konkret geht es um den Diabetes-Patienten mit kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen oder Risiken, die Herzinsuffizienz sowie die kardiovaskuläre Primär- und Sekundärprävention. Sind Sie hier schon auf dem neuesten Stand? Unsere Experten beleuchten, wo und warum das bisherige Procedere geändert werden soll und was in der Praxis sinnvoll ist. Holen Sie sich Ihr Update und 2 CME-Punkte beim MMW-Webinar am 24. April von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. 
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
World Journal of Urology
Erschienen in: World Journal of Urology 4/2018

23.01.2018 | Review

Comparison of retropubic, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: who is the winner?

verfasst von: Abbas Basiri, Jean JMCH de la Rosette, Shahin Tabatabaei, Henry H. Woo, M. Pilar Laguna, Hamidreza Shemshaki

Erschienen in: World Journal of Urology | Ausgabe 4/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

This study is a systematic analysis of the evidence regarding oncological, perioperative and postoperative outcomes and the cost of open retropubic radical prostatectomy (ORP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP).

Methods

Summary data was abstracted from 104 original research articles representing 227,400 patients. PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were reviewed in December 2016. A total of 104 publications were selected for inclusion. The primary outcomes were positive surgical margin (PSM) and major complication rate according to Clavien classifications. Secondary outcomes were operative time, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, transfusions, conversions, rate of post-operative erectile dysfunction and incontinence and total cost of procedure.

Results

ORP had a significantly higher rate than RALP for PSM (OR: 1.18; 95% CI 1.05–1.32; p = 0.004), but the rate of PSM was not significantly different between ORP versus LRP (OR: 1.37; 95% CI 0.88–2.14; p = 0.17) and RALP versus LRP (OR: 0.83; 95% CI 0.40–1.72; p = 0.62). The major Clavien complication rate was significantly different between ORP and RALP (OR: 2.14; 95% CI 1.24–3.68; p = 0.006). Estimated blood loss, transfusions and length of hospital stay were low for RALP, moderate for LRP and high for ORP. The rate of erectile dysfunction (OR: 2.58; 95% CI 1.77–3.75; p < 0.001) and incontinence (OR: 3.57; 95% CI 2.28–5.58; p < 0.001) were significantly lower after RALP than LRP and equivalent for other comparisons. Total cost was highest for RALP, followed by LRP and ORP.

Conclusions

For PSM and peri- and post-operative complications, RALP showed better results than ORP and LRP. In the context of the biases between the studies, one should interpret the results with caution.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Siegel R, DeSantis C, Virgo K, Stein K, Mariotto A, Smith T et al (2012) Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 62(4):220–241PubMedCrossRef
2.
Eggleston JC, Walsh PC (1985) Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: pathological findings in the first 100 cases. J Urol 134(6):1146–1148PubMedCrossRef
3.
Lein M, Stibane I, Mansour R, Hege C, Roigas J, Wille A et al (2006) Complications, urinary continence, and oncologic outcome of 1000 laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomies-experience at the Charite Hospital Berlin. Campus Mitte. Eur Urol. 50(6):1278–1282 (discussion 83–4) PubMedCrossRef
4.
Boccon-Gibod L (2006) Radical prostatectomy: open? laparoscopic? robotic? Eur Urol 49(4):598–599PubMedCrossRef
5.
Rassweiler J, Seemann O, Schulze M, Teber D, Hatzinger M, Frede T (2003) Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. J Urol 169(5):1689–1693PubMedCrossRef
6.
Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S, Ahlering TE, Carroll PR, Graefen M et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62(3):382–404PubMedCrossRef
7.
Kim SP, Boorjian SA, Shah ND, Weight CJ, Tilburt JC, Han LC et al (2013) Disparities in access to hospitals with robotic surgery for patients with prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. J Urol 189(2):514–520PubMedCrossRef
8.
Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A, Graefen M et al (2009) Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 55(5):1037–1063PubMedCrossRef
9.
Parsons JK, Bennett JL (2008) Outcomes of retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Urology 72(2):412–416PubMedCrossRef
10.
Ficarra V, Cavalleri S, Novara G, Aragona M, Artibani W (2007) Evidence from robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review. Eur Urol 51(1):45–55 (discussion 6) PubMedCrossRef
11.
Artibani W, Ficarra V, Guillonneau BD (2007) Open to debate. The motion: a robot is needed to perform the best nerve sparing prostatectomy. Eur Urol 52(1):275–278PubMedCrossRef
12.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, Occhipinti S, Samaratunga H, Zajdlewicz L et al (2016) Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet 388(10049):1057–1066PubMedCrossRef
15.
Ghavamian R, Knoll A, Boczko J, Melman A (2006) Comparison of operative and functional outcomes of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and radical retropubic prostatectomy: single surgeon experience. Urology. 67(6):1241–1246PubMedCrossRef
16.
Guazzoni G, Cestari A, Naspro R, Riva M, Centemero A, Zanoni M et al (2006) Intra- and peri-operative outcomes comparing radical retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: results from a prospective, randomised, single-surgeon study. Eur Urol 50(1):98–104PubMedCrossRef
17.
Poulakis V, Witzsch U, de Vries R, Dillenburg W, Becht E (2007) 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 51(5):1341–1348 (discussion 9) PubMedCrossRef
18.
Wagner AA, Link RE, Trock BJ, Sullivan W, Pavlovich CP (2007) Comparison of open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy outcomes from a surgeon’s early experience. Urology 70(4):667–671PubMedCrossRef
19.
Drouin SJ, Vaessen C, Hupertan V, Comperat E, Misrai V, Haertig A et al (2009) Comparison of mid-term carcinologic control obtained after open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. World J Urol 27(5):599–605PubMedCrossRef
20.
Dahl DM, Barry MJ, McGovern FJ, Chang Y, Walker-Corkery E, McDougal WS (2009) A prospective study of symptom distress and return to baseline function after open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 182(3):956–965PubMedCrossRef
21.
Louie-Johnsun MW, Handmer MM, Calopedos RJ, Chabert C, Cohen RJ, Gianduzzo TR et al (2016) The Australian laparoscopic non robotic radical prostatectomy experience–analysis of 2943 cases (USANZ supplement). BJU Int. 118(Suppl 3):43–48PubMedCrossRef
22.
Artibani W, Grosso G, Novara G, Pecoraro G, Sidoti O, Sarti A et al (2003) Is laparoscopic radical prostatectomy better than traditional retropubic radical prostatectomy? An analysis of peri-operative morbidity in two contemporary series in Italy. Eur Urol 44(4):401–406PubMedCrossRef
23.
Remzi M, Klingler HC, Tinzl MV, Fong YK, Lodde M, Kiss B et al (2005) Morbidity of laparoscopic extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal radical prostatectomy versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 48(1):83–89 (discussion 9) PubMedCrossRef
24.
Roumeguere T, Bollens R, Vanden Bossche M, Rochet D, Bialek D, Hoffman P et al (2003) Radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of oncological and functional results between open and laparoscopic approaches. World J Urol 20(6):360–366PubMed
25.
Greco F, Wagner S, Hoda MR, Kawan F, Inferrera A, Lupo A et al (2010) Laparoscopic vs open retropubic intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: surgical and functional outcomes in 300 patients. BJU Int 106(4):543–547PubMedCrossRef
26.
Al-Shaiji TF, Kanaroglou N, Thom A, Prowse C, Comondore V, Orovan W et al (2010) A cost-analysis comparison of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open radical prostatectomy: the McMaster Institute of Urology experience. Can Urol Assoc J 4(4):237–241PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
Sugihara T, Yasunaga H, Horiguchi H, Matsui H, Fujimura T, Nishimatsu H et al (2014) Robot-assisted versus other types of radical prostatectomy: population-based safety and cost comparison in Japan, 2012–2013. Cancer Sci 105(11):1421–1426PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, Guillonneau B, Vallancien G (2002) Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology 60(5):864–868PubMedCrossRef
29.
Ahlering TE, Woo D, Eichel L, Lee DI, Edwards R, Skarecky DW (2004) Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon’s outcomes. Urology 63(5):819–822PubMedCrossRef
30.
Wood DP, Schulte R, Dunn RL, Hollenbeck BK, Saur R, Wolf JS Jr et al (2007) Short-term health outcome differences between robotic and conventional radical prostatectomy. Urology. 70(5):945–949PubMedCrossRef
31.
Krambeck AE, DiMarco DS, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Myers RP, Blute ML et al (2009) Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques. BJU Int 103(4):448–453PubMedCrossRef
32.
Rocco B, Matei DV, Melegari S, Ospina JC, Mazzoleni F, Errico G et al (2009) Robotic vs open prostatectomy in a laparoscopically naive centre: a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int. 104(7):991–995PubMedCrossRef
33.
D’Alonzo RC, Gan TJ, Moul JW, Albala DM, Polascik TJ, Robertson CN et al (2009) A retrospective comparison of anesthetic management of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Clin Anesth 21(5):322–328PubMedCrossRef
34.
Di Pierro GB, Baumeister P, Stucki P, Beatrice J, Danuser H, Mattei A (2011) A prospective trial comparing consecutive series of open retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a centre with a limited caseload. Eur Urol 59(1):1–6PubMedCrossRef
35.
Philippou P, Waine E, Rowe E (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open: comparison of the learning curve of a single surgeon. J Endourol 26(8):1002–1008PubMedCrossRef
36.
Jackson MA, Bellas N, Siegrist T, Haddock P, Staff I, Laudone V et al (2016) Experienced open vs early robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a 10-year prospective and retrospective comparison. Urology 91:111–118PubMedCrossRef
37.
Fracalanza S, Ficarra V, Cavalleri S, Galfano A, Novara G, Mangano A et al (2008) Is robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy less invasive than retropubic radical prostatectomy? Results from a prospective, unrandomized, comparative study. BJU Int 101(9):1145–1149PubMedCrossRef
38.
Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M (2003) Members of the VIPT. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int 92(3):205–210PubMedCrossRef
39.
Nadler RB, Casey JT, Zhao LC, Navai N, Smith ZL, Zhumkhawala A et al (2010) Is the transition from open to robotic prostatectomy fair to your patients? A single-surgeon comparison with 2-year follow-up. J Robot Surg 3(4):201–207PubMedCrossRef
40.
Lo KL, Ng CF, Lam CN, Hou SS, To KF, Yip SK (2010) Short-term outcome of patients with robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: for localised carcinoma of prostate. Hong Kong Med J 16(1):31–35PubMed
41.
Doumerc N, Yuen C, Savdie R, Rahman MB, Rasiah KK, Pe Benito R et al (2010) Should experienced open prostatic surgeons convert to robotic surgery? The real learning curve for one surgeon over 3 years. BJU Int. 106(3):378–384PubMedCrossRef
42.
Choo MS, Choi WS, Cho SY, Ku JH, Kim HH, Kwak C (2013) Impact of prostate volume on oncological and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy: robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open retropubic. Korean J Urol 54(1):15–21PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
43.
Lott FM, Favorito LA (2015) Is previous experience in laparoscopic necessary to perform robotic radical prostatectomy? A comparative study with robotic and the classic open procedure in patients with prostate cancer. Acta Cir Bras 30(3):229–234PubMedCrossRef
44.
Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Hebert AE, Wiklund P (2012) 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):1–15PubMedCrossRef
45.
Pearce SM, Pariser JJ, Karrison T, Patel SG, Eggener SE (2016) Comparison of perioperative and early oncologic outcomes between open and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in a contemporary population based cohort. J Urol 196(1):76–81PubMedCrossRef
46.
Chuang AY, Epstein JI (2008) Positive surgical margins in areas of capsular incision in otherwise organ-confined disease at radical prostatectomy: histologic features and pitfalls. Am J Surg Pathol 32(8):1201–1206PubMedCrossRef
47.
Ryu J, Kwon T, Kyung YS, Hong S, You D, Jeong IG et al (2013) Retropubic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a comparative study of postoperative complications. Korean J Urol 54(11):756–761PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
48.
Haglind E, Carlsson S, Stranne J, Wallerstedt A, Wilderang U, Thorsteinsdottir T et al (2015) Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic versus open radical prostatectomy: a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial. Eur Urol 68(2):216–225PubMedCrossRef
49.
Son SJ, Lee SC, Jeong CW, Jeong SJ, Byun SS, Lee SE (2013) Comparison of continence recovery between robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy: a single surgeon experience. Korean J Urol 54(9):598–602PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
50.
Burgess SV, Atug F, Castle EP, Davis R, Thomas R (2006) Cost analysis of radical retropubic, perineal, and robotic prostatectomy. J Endourol 20(10):827–830PubMedCrossRef
51.
Tomaszewski JJ, Matchett JC, Davies BJ, Jackman SV, Hrebinko RL, Nelson JB (2012) Comparative hospital cost-analysis of open and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urology 80(1):126–129PubMedCrossRef
52.
Rozet F, Jaffe J, Braud G, Harmon J, Cathelineau X, Barret E et al (2007) A direct comparison of robotic assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single institution experience. J Urol 178(2):478–482PubMedCrossRef
53.
Trabulsi EJ, Zola JC, Gomella LG, Lallas CD (2010) Transition from pure laparoscopic to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a single surgeon institutional evolution. Urol Oncol. 28(1):81–85PubMedCrossRef
54.
Hakimi AA, Blitstein J, Feder M, Shapiro E, Ghavamian R (2009) Direct comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of robotic-assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: single-surgeon experience. Urology 73(1):119–123PubMedCrossRef
55.
Porpiglia F, Morra I, Lucci Chiarissi M, Manfredi M, Mele F, Grande S et al (2013) Randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 63(4):606–614PubMedCrossRef
56.
Magheli A, Gonzalgo ML, Su LM, Guzzo TJ, Netto G, Humphreys EB et al (2011) Impact of surgical technique (open vs laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted) on pathological and biochemical outcomes following radical prostatectomy: an analysis using propensity score matching. BJU Int 107(12):1956–1962PubMedCrossRef
57.
Busch J, Gonzalgo ML, Leva N, Ferrari M, Cash H, Kempkensteffen C et al (2015) Matched comparison of robot-assisted, laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy regarding pathologic and oncologic outcomes in obese patients. World J Urol 33(3):397–402PubMedCrossRef
58.
Asimakopoulos AD, Pereira Fraga CT, Annino F, Pasqualetti P, Calado AA, Mugnier C (2011) Randomized comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med 8(5):1503–1512PubMedCrossRef
59.
Villamil W, Billordo Peres N, Martinez P, Giudice C, Liyo J, Garcia Marchinena P et al (2013) Incidence and location of positive surgical margins following open, pure laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy and its relation with neurovascular preservation: a single-institution experience. J Robot Surg 7(1):21–27PubMedCrossRef
60.
Sylvester RJ, Canfield SE, Lam TB, Marconi L, MacLennan S, Yuan Y et al (2016) Conflict of evidence: resolving discrepancies when findings from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses disagree. Eur Urol 71:811–819PubMedCrossRef
61.
Evans SM, Nag N, Roder D, Brooks A, Millar JL, Moretti KL et al (2016) Development of an international prostate cancer outcomes registry. BJU Int 117(Suppl 4):60–67PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Comparison of retropubic, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: who is the winner?
verfasst von
Abbas Basiri
Jean JMCH de la Rosette
Shahin Tabatabaei
Henry H. Woo
M. Pilar Laguna
Hamidreza Shemshaki
Publikationsdatum
23.01.2018
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
World Journal of Urology / Ausgabe 4/2018
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2174-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2018

World Journal of Urology 4/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Original Article

Fluoroscopy-free ultrasonography-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients: a single-center experience

Topic Paper

Three dimensional models in uro-oncology: a future built with additive fabrication

Topic Paper

Novel technology of molecular radio-guidance for lymph node dissection in recurrent prostate cancer by PSMA-ligands

Topic Paper

68Ga-prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) for primary staging of high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review

Original Article

Surgical treatment for clinical node-positive bladder cancer patients treated with radical cystectomy without neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Topic Paper

Robotic surgery in public hospitals of Latin-America: a castle of sand?

Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie

22.04.2024 | Prostatakarzinom | Nachrichten

Stufenschema weist Prostatakarzinom zuverlässig nach

20.04.2024 | EAU 2024 | Kongressbericht | Nachrichten

Harnwegsinfektprophylaxe: Es geht auch ohne Antibiotika

19.04.2024 | EAU 2024 | Kongressbericht | Nachrichten

Varikozelen bei Jugendlichen: Das Für und Wider der Operation

19.04.2024 | EAU 2024 | Kongressbericht | Nachrichten

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich
weitere anzeigen

Update Urologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen