Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of radical prostatectomy techniques: open, laparoscopic and robotic assisted: [review]
Frota, Rodrigo; Turna, Burak; Barros, Rodrigo; Gill, Inderbir S.
Affiliation
  • Frota, Rodrigo; Cleveland Clinic Foundation. Glickman Urological Institute. Section of Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery. Cleveland. US
  • Turna, Burak; Cleveland Clinic Foundation. Glickman Urological Institute. Section of Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery. Cleveland. US
  • Barros, Rodrigo; Cleveland Clinic Foundation. Glickman Urological Institute. Section of Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery. Cleveland. US
  • Gill, Inderbir S; Cleveland Clinic Foundation. Glickman Urological Institute. Section of Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery. Cleveland. US
Int. braz. j. urol ; 34(3): 259-269, May-June 2008. ilus, tab
Article in En | LILACS | ID: lil-489584
Responsible library: BR1.1
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

To review the current status of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP) in relation to radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) in the management of localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

Between 1982 and 2007 published literature was reviewed using the National Library of Medicine database and the following key words retropubic, laparoscopic, robotic, robot-assisted, and radical prostatectomy. Special emphasis was given to the technical and cost considerations as well as operative, functional and oncologic outcomes. In particular, reports with pioneering work that have contributed to the evolution of the technique, presenting comparative outcomes and with large series encompassing intermediate/long term follow-up, were taken into account.

RESULTS:

After intermediate term follow-up, LRP and RALP achieved similar oncologic and functional results compared to RRP. However, LRP and RALP were associated with decreased blood loss, faster convalescence and better cosmetics when compared to RRP. The RALP technique is undoubtedly more expensive.

CONCLUSIONS:

The oncologic and functional outcomes for LRP and RALP are similar to RRP after intermediate term follow-up. Long term follow-up and adequately designed studies will determine the inherent advantages and disadvantages of the individual techniques in the management of localized prostate cancer.
Subject(s)
Key words
Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: LILACS Main subject: Prostatectomy / Prostatic Neoplasms / Robotics / Laparoscopy Type of study: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limits: Humans / Male Language: En Journal: Int Braz J Urol / Int. braz j urol (Online) / Int. braz. j. urol / International braz j urol (Impresso) / International brazilian journal of urology Journal subject: UROLOGIA Year: 2008 Document type: Article Affiliation country: United States Country of publication: Brazil
Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: LILACS Main subject: Prostatectomy / Prostatic Neoplasms / Robotics / Laparoscopy Type of study: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limits: Humans / Male Language: En Journal: Int Braz J Urol / Int. braz j urol (Online) / Int. braz. j. urol / International braz j urol (Impresso) / International brazilian journal of urology Journal subject: UROLOGIA Year: 2008 Document type: Article Affiliation country: United States Country of publication: Brazil