Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review
  • Published:

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy a review of the literature and comparison with open techniques

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 7, pages 295–301 (2004)Cite this article

Abstract

Background: The development of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) has been one of the surgical advances in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. The procedure aims to combine the advantages of minimal access surgery with resection based on established oncological principles with cure rates and functional results that are at least comparable to open radical prostatectomy (ORP).

Objectives: This review compares the advantages and disadvantages of the LRP to the ORP with regard to the real benefits to the patient. The impact on the urological practice was also addressed by the review.

Methods: A comprehensive literature review of the published series/cases of both open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy was performed.

Results: LRP is a feasible and reproducible procedure for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Although its technique is standardized, LRP is technically demanding and it takes longer time than ORP.

Conclusion: The current published results of LRP show no advantages over that of the ORP. If long-term data shows better results in terms of functional and oncological outcomes, LRP may challenge or even replace the standard ORP in the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Oliver SE, Gunnell D, Donovan JL . Comparison of trends in prostate cancer mortality in England and Wales and the USA. Lancet 2000; 355: 1788–1789.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Majeed A et al. Trends in prostate cancer incidence, mortality and survival in England and Wales 1971–1998. BJU Int 2000; 85: 1058–1062.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Jemal A et al. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2003; 53: 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brewster DH et al. Rising incidence of prostate cancer in Scotland: increased risk or increased detection? BJU Int 2000; 85: 463–472.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Yoichi A . Radical prostatectomy: time trends, morbidity and quality of life. Int J Urol 2001; 8: S15–S18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lu-Yao GL, Yao SL . Population-based study of long-term survival in patients with clinically localised prostate cancer. Lancet 1997; 349: 906–910.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Young HH . The early diagnosis and radical cure of carcinoma of the prostate. A study of 40 cases and presentation of radical operation which was carried out in four cases. Johns Hopkins Hosp Bull 1905; 16: 315–321.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Millen T . Retropubic prostatectomy: a new extravesical technique. Lancet 1945; 2: 963.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Reiner WG, Walsh PC . An anatomical approach to the surgical management of the dorsal vein and Santorini's plexus during radical retropubic surgery. J Urol 1979; 121: 198–200.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Miyake H et al. Comparison of surgical stress between laparoscopy and open surgery in the field of urology by measurement of humoral mediators. Int J Urol 2002; 9: 329–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Schuessler WW, Kavoussi LR, Clayman RV, Vancaillie TH . Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial case report. J Urol 1992; 147 246A.

  12. Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR . Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology 1997; 50: 854–857.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Raboy A, Ferzli G, Albert P . Initial experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 1997; 50: 849–853.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bollens R et al. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Results after 50 cases. Eur Urol 2001; 40: 65–69.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Stolzenburg JU et al. The endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): technique and initial experience. World J Urol 2002; 20: 48–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Guillonneau B et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Preliminary evaluation after 28 interventions. Presse Med 1998; 27: 1570–1574.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Guillonneau B, Vallancien G . Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris experience. J Urol 2000; 163: 418–422.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Guillonneau B, Vallancien G . Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris technique. J Urol 2000; 163: 1643–1649.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Guillonneau B et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 240 procedures. Urol Clin North Am 2001; 28: 189–202.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Guillonneau B et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the lessons learned. J Endourol 2001; 15: 441–445.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Abbou CC et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: preliminary results. Urology 2000; 55: 630–634.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Eden CG et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the initial UK series. BJU Int 2002; 90: 876–882.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Turk I et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Technical aspects and experience with 125 cases. Eur Urol 2001; 40: 46–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Dahl DM et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial 70 cases at a US university medical center. Urology 2002; 60: 859–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gregori A et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: perioperative complications in an initial and consecutive series of 80 cases. Eur Urol 2003; 44: 190–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Arai Y et al. Morbidity of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: smmary of early multi-institutional experience in Japan. Int J Urol 2003; 10: 430–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Guillonneau B et al. Perioperative complications of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris 3-year experience. J Urol 2002; 167: 51–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rassweiler J et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique: an analysis of the first 180 cases. J Urol 2001; 166: 2101–2108.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Hoznek A et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: published series. Curr Urol Rep 2002; 3: 152–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hoznek A et al. Assessment of surgical technique and perioperative morbidity associated with extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2003; 61: 617–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Stolzenburg JU et al. Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: results after 300 procedures. Urologe A 2004; 43: 698–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bollens R et al. Comparison of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy techniques. Curr Urol Rep 2002; 3: 148–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hoznek A et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Curr Urol Rep 2002; 3: 141–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sulser T et al. Complications and initial experience with 1228 laparoscopic radical prostatectomy at 6 European centres. J Urol 2001; 165 (Suppl): 150.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Stolzenburg JU et al. Does the extraperitoneal laparoscopic approach improve the outcome of radical prostatectomy? Curr Urol Rep 2004; 5: 115–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Salomon L et al. Urinary continence and erectile function: a prospective evaluation of functional results after radical laparoscopic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2002; 42: 338–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hoznek A et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The Creteil experience. Eur Urol 2001; 40: 38–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Rassweiler J et al. Laparoscopic vs open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. J Urol 2003; 169: 1689–1693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Guillonneau B et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 550 procedures. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2002; 43: 123–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Salomon L et al. Radical prostatectomy by the retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic approach: 12 years of experience in one center. Eur Urol 2002; 42: 104–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lepor H, Nieder AM, Ferrandino MN . Intraoperative and postoperative complications of radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1,000 cases. J Urol 2001; 166: 1729–1733.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Shekarriz B, Updhyay J, Wood DP . Intraoperative, perioperative and long-term complications of radical prostatectomy. Urol Clin North Am 2001; 3: 639–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Catalona WJ et al. Potency, continence and complication rates in 1,870 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol 1999; 162: 433–438.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Lepor H, Nieder AM, Ferrandino MN . Intraoperative and postoperative complications of radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1,000 cases. J Urol 2001; 166: 1729–1733.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Surya BV et al. Anastomotic strictures following radical prostatectomy: risk factors and management. J Urol 1990; 143: 755–758.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Leibman BD et al. Impact of a clinical pathway for radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 1998; 52: 94–99.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Cohn JH, El Galley R . Radical prostatectomy in a community practice. J Urol 2002; 167: 224–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Link RE et al. Making ends meet: a cost comparison of laparoscopic and open radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 2004; 172: 269–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Cheng L et al. Correlation of margin status and extraprostatic extension with progression of prostate carcinoma. Cancer 1999; 86: 1775–1782.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. van den OD et al. Positive margins after radical prostatectomy: correlation with local recurrence and distant progression. Br J Urol 1993; 72: 489–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Epstein JI . Incidence and significance of positive surgical margins in radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens. Urol Clin North Am 1996; 23: 651–663.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Walsh PC . Nerve grafts are rarely necessary and are unlikely to improve sexual function in men undergoing anatomic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2001; 57: 1020–1024.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Ohori M et al. Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 1995; 154: 1818–1824.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Blute ML et al. Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology 1997; 50: 733–739.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Salomon L et al. Outcome and complications of radical prostatectomy in patients with PSA <10 ng/ml: comparison between the retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic approach. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2002; 5: 285–290.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Amling CL et al. Long-term hazard of progression after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: continued risk of biochemical failure after 5 years. J Urol 2000; 164: 101–105.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Guillonneau B et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological evaluation after 1,000 cases a Montsouris Institute. J Urol 2003; 169: 1261–1266.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Stanford JL et al. Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. JAMA 2000; 283: 354–360.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Walsh PC et al. Patient-reported urinary continence and sexual function after anatomic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2000; 55: 58–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Novicki DE et al. Comparison of the modified vest and the direct anastomosis for radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 1997; 49: 732–736.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Olsson LE et al. Prospective patient-reported continence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2001; 58: 570–572.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Catalona WJ, Bigg SW . Nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: evaluation of results after 250 patients. J Urol 1990; 143: 538–543.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Hara I et al. Comparison of quality of life following laparoscopic and open prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 2003; 169: 2045–2048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Andrea G et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: perioperative complications in an initial and consecutive series of 80 cases. Eur Urol 2003; 44: 190–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Dillioglugil O et al. Risk factors for complications and morbidity after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 1997; 157: 1760–1767.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Maffezzini M et al. Evaluation of complications and results in a contemporary series of 300 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies with the anatomic approach at a single institution. Urology 2003; 61: 982–986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Weldon VE, Tavel FR, Neuwirth H . Continence, potency and morbidity after radical perineal prostatectomy. J Urol 1997; 158: 1470–1475.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery and Urology, Torbay Hospital, Torquay, UK

    A M Omar

  2. Department of Urology, Ninewells Hospital & Medical School, Dundee, UK

    N Townell

Authors
  1. A M Omar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N Townell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A M Omar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Omar, A., Townell, N. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy a review of the literature and comparison with open techniques. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 7, 295–301 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.pcan.4500755

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.pcan.4500755

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links