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.

  • Viewpoint
  • Published:

Robotic versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Nature Clinical Practice Urology volume 1, pages 58–59 (2004)Cite this article

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), like laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, is a product of the evolution of standard open surgery to minimally invasive surgery. The first report of a successful laparoscopic nephrectomy came in 1991.1 Just 1 year later Schuessler, Kavoussi and Clayman—largely the same group that was responsible for the successful laparoscopic nephrectomy—reported the first LRP.2 As is well chronicled, these pioneers experienced technical problems primarily related to suturing the urethrovesical anastomosis.

Development of LRP continued across the Atlantic Ocean. In 1999, two groups in Paris that had persevered and conquered the difficult learning curve of LRP reported relatively large series, paving the way for rapid advancement of the technique.3,4 Interestingly, LRP is now most vigorous in Europe, in contrast to the US, where only a handful of centers have established successful programs. Remarkably, a small number of American centers have attempted to establish LRP programs by luring well-established European surgeons, either on a temporary or permanent basis. One center that attempted such a transfer of knowledge and skills was Henry Ford Hospital. But their quest to establish a purely laparoscopic program stalled, subsequently metamorphosing into the first large-scale robotic LRP program using the da Vinci® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA).5 In just 3 years, robotic LRP has experienced geometric growth in the US. In 2003, 2,648 robotic procedures were performed. The projected number for 2004 is at least 7,000 (data from Intuitive Surgical Inc.); almost 10% of all radical prostatectomies that will be performed this year.

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

References

  1. Clayman RV et al. (1991) Laparoscopic nephrectomy: initial case report. J Urol 146: 278–282

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Schuessler WW et al. (1997) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology 50: 854–857

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Guillonneau B and Vallancien G (1999) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial experience and preliminary assessment after 65 operations. Prostate 39: 71–75

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Abbou CC et al. (2000) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: preliminary results. Urology 55: 630–634

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Menon M et al. (2002) Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol 168: 945–949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ahlering TE et al. (2003) Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 170: 1738–1741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hasan WA and Gill IS (2004) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: current status. BJU Int 94: 7–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ahlering TE et al. (2004) Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon's outcomes. Urology 63: 819–822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Menon M et al. (2003) Vattikuti Institute Prostatectomy: a single-team experience of 100 cases. J Endourol 17: 785–790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Moran ME (2003) Robotic surgery: urologic implications. J Endourol 17: 695–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Associate Professor of Urology and Chief of the Division of Urology in the University of California at Irvine Medical Center,

    Thomas E Ahlering

Authors
  1. Thomas E Ahlering
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas E Ahlering.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Glossary

PNEUMOPERITONEUM

The presence of gas or air in the peritoneal cavity

CHOLECYSTECTOMY

Surgical removal of the gall bladder

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ahlering, T. Robotic versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Nat Rev Urol 1, 58–59 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro0040

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro0040

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing