Clinical utility of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: advances and current status

References

• Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al., eds. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2011. Bethesda, MD; 2014. Available from: http://www.seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2011/. Accessed April 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Quinn M, Babb P, Brock A, Kirby L, Jones J. Cancer Trends in England and Wales, 1950–1999: Studies on Medical and Population Subjects No 66. London: Stationery Office; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Millin T. Retropubic prostatectomy. Br J Urol. 1946;18:33–38.
   Google Scholar
• Walsh PC. Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique. J Urol. 1998;160(6 Pt 2):2418–2424.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah J, Mackay S, Rockall T, Vale J, Darzi A. ‘Urobotics’: robots in urology. BJU Int. 2001;88(4):313–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nedas TG, Challacombe BJ, Dasgupta P. Robotics in urology: an update. Int J Med Robot. 2005;1(2):13–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kavoussi LR, Moore RG, Adams JB, Partin AW. Comparison of robotic versus human laparoscopic camera control. J Urol. 1995;154(6):2134–2136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowersox JC, Cornum RL. Remote operative urology using a surgical telemanipulator system: preliminary observations. Urology. 1998;52(1):17–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dharia SP, Falcone T. Robotics in reproductive medicine. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(1):1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yates DR, Vaessen C, Roupret M. From Leonardo to da Vinci: the history of robot-assisted surgery in urology. BJU Int. 2011;108(11):1708–1713; discussion 1714.
   Google Scholar
• Shah K, Abaza R. Comparison of intraoperative outcomes using the new and old generation da Vinci® robot for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2011;108(10):1642–1645.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mavrich Villavicencio H, Esquena S, Palou Redorta J, Gómez Ruíz JJ. [Robotic radical prostatectomy: overview of our learning curve]. Actas Urol Esp. 2007;31(6):587–592. Spanish [with English abstract].
   Google Scholar
• Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris technique. J Urol. 2000;163(6):1643–1649.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tewari A, Peabody J, Sarle R, et al. Technique of da Vinci robot-assisted anatomic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2002;60(4):569–572.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Velthoven RF, Ahlering TE, Peltier A, Skarecky DW, Clayman RV. Technique for laparoscopic running urethrovesical anastomosis: the single knot method. Urology. 2003;61(4):699–702.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):431–452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gettman MT, Hoznek A, Salomon L, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of the extraperitoneal approach using the da Vinci robotic system. J Urol. 2003;170(2 Pt 1):416–419.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atug F, Castle EP, Woods M, Srivastav SK, Thomas R, Davis R. Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: is one better than the other? Urology. 2006;68(5):1077–1081.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vricella GJ, Klaassen Z, Terris MK, Madi R. Retrograde robotic radical prostatectomy: description of a new technique and early perioperative outcomes. ISRN Urol. 2014;2014:945604.
   Google Scholar
• Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Edwards RA, Lee DI, Skarecky DW. Robotic radical prostatectomy: a technique to reduce pT2 positive margins. Urology. 2004;64(6):1224–1228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. 2011;59(2):235–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaul S, Savera A, Badani K, Fumo M, Bhandari A, Menon M. Functional outcomes and oncological efficacy of Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy with Veil of Aphrodite nerve-sparing: an analysis of 154 consecutive patients. BJU Int. 2006;97(3):467–472.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaul S, Bhandari A, Hemal A, Savera A, Shrivastava A, Menon M. Robotic radical prostatectomy with preservation of the prostatic fascia: a feasibility study. Urology. 2005;66(6):1261–1265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Chou D, Skarecky DW. Feasibility study for robotic radical prostatectomy cautery-free neurovascular bundle preservation. Urology. 2005;65(5):994–997.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol. 2007;51(3):648–657; discussion 657–658.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menon M, Shrivastava A, Bhandari M, Satyanarayana R, Siva S, Agarwal PK. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technical modifications in 2009. Eur Urol. 2009;56(1):89–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ficarra V, Cavalleri S, Novara G, Aragona M, Artibani W. Evidence from robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2007;51(1):45–55; discussion 56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2009;55(5):1037–1063.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alemozaffar M, Sanda M, Yecies D, Mucci LA, Stampfer MJ, Kenfield SA. Benchmarks for operative outcomes of robotic and open radical prostatectomy: results from the Health Professionals Follow-up study. Eur Urol. Epub February 11, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• 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. 2012;62(1):1–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barocas DA, Salem S, Kordan Y, et al. Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: comparison of short-term biochemical recurrence-free survival. J Urol. 2010;183(3):990–996.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drouin SJ, Vaessen C, Hupertan V, et al. Comparison of mid-term carcinologic control obtained after open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2009;27(5):599–605.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magheli A, Gonzalgo ML, Su LM, et al. 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. 2011;107(12):1956–1962.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):382–404.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sukumar S, Rogers CG, Trinh Q-D, et al. Oncological outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: long term follow-up in 4,803 patients. BJU Int. Epub August 12, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Dasgupta P, Kirby RS. Outcomes of robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol. 2009;16(3):244–248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim SK, Kim KH, Shin TY, Rha KH. Current status of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: how does it compare with other surgical approaches? Int J Urol. 2013;20(3):271–284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mottrie A, Gallina A, De Wil P, Thüer D, Novara G, Ficarra V. Balancing continence function and oncological outcomes during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). BJU Int. 2011;108(6 Pt 2):999–1006.
   Google Scholar
• Porpiglia F, Morra I, Lucci Chiarissi M, et al. Randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2013;63(4):606–614.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramsay C, Pickard R, Robertson C, et al. Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(41):1–313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolenz C, Freedland SJ, Hollenbeck BK, et al. Costs of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014;65(2):316–324.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rebuck DA, Zhao LC, Helfand BT, et al. Simple modifications in operating room processes to reduce the times and costs associated with robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2011;25(6):955–960.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen MM, Das S. The evolution of robotic urologic surgery. Urol Clin North Am. 2004;31(4):653–658, vii.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satava RM, Bowersox JC, Mack M, Krummel TM. Robotic surgery: state of the art and future trends. Contemp Surg. 2001;57(10):489–499.
   Google Scholar
• Sahoo SK, Ma W, Labhasetwar V. Efficacy of transferrin-conjugated paclitaxel-loaded nanoparticles in a murine model of prostate cancer. Int J Cancer. 2004;112(2):335–340.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shergill IS, Rao A, Arya M, Patel H, Gill IS. Nanotechnology: potential applications in urology. BJU Int. 2006;97(2):219–220.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar