Comparison of Radical Prostatectomy Techniques: Open, Laparoscopic and Robotic Assisted

Introduction: To review the current status of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic assisted radical prosta-tectomy (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.


INTRODUCTION
Prostate cancer accounts for approximately one third of cancer in men in the United States.Eightysix percent of prostate cancer diagnosed in 2004 was localized with 5-year survival rates approaching 100% (1).Based on excellent survival rates, radical prostatectomy is considered the standard treatment for the management of localized prostate cancer (2).
Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy (RRP) incontinence, impotence and prolonged convalescence.In the early 1980s, Walsh laid the foundations of anatomic RRP with better understanding of the and neurovascular bundle (NVB) (4).These results were associated with better functional outcomes without compromising oncologic principles.The variability of RRP outcomes, introduction of laparoscopy in the urological armamentarium and the success of less invasive treatment alternatives (i.e.brachytherapy) in prostate cancer, have acceler-ated the development of laparoscopic pelvic surgery radical prostatectomy (LRP) in 1991 (6).Of note, the Guillonneau and Vallancien in the late 1990s and the procedure has gained popularity since then (7).In addition to the conventional advantages of minimal invasive surgery and reduced blood loss, the LRP technique, in expert hands, is safe and effective, and provides oncologic outcomes comparable to that of open RRP (7,8).However, LRP is a complex procedure associated with a steep learning curve and limited ergonomics.
Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy RALP has been popularized by Menon et al. with an intention to decrease the steep learning curve of LRP while accomplishing the advantage of a minimally invasive technique (10).Advantages of the RALP and the Endowrist technology (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) (11).Furthermore, improved ergonomic surgery can be achieved by a comfortably seated surgeon.
The RRP is the reference standard for the surgical management of localized prostate cancer.With wider availability of the minimally invasive radical prostatectomy techniques, there is a debate regarding what the standard treatment will be for the management of localized prostate cancer in the near future.It is also open to discussion as to whether experienced open surgeons should learn minimally invasive techniques.There are no prospective randomized studies, to our knowledge, comparing the three techniques (RRP vs. LRP vs. RALP) to date.In comparing the three techniques, several issues such as perioperative, functional and oncologic outcomes need to be addressed.Unquestionably, achieving optimum cancer control is the most important determinant followed by favorable functional outcomes.Another factor that It is clearly important to address these issues in the urological literature.Therefore, in this review, we present the evolution and the recent data on the outcomes of RRP, LRP and RALP in the contemporary urological literature with a special emphasis on the technique, cost, operative, functional and oncologic outcomes.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE
The standard surgical technique for RRP was described by Walsh (4).Other urologists have used additional anatomic and technologic advances to minimize morbidity associated with the procedure.
techniques and noted that the mini-laparatomy RRP technique was associated with less operating room (OR) time and reduced cost compared to LRP (12).Mini-laparotomy was performed using an 8 cm low midline incision, wherein a laparoscopic camera lens was used for visualization.Sved et al. reported a RRP ciated with better cosmetic results, less postoperative Four different LRP techniques including the transperitoneal antegrade technique, transperitoneal retrograde technique, extraperitoneal antegrade technique and extraperitoneal retrograde technique have been described (14).The antegrade transperitoneal approach is preferred at the Cleveland Clinic.Using the transperitoneal or the extraperitoneal approach, the senior author has performed more than 750 LRPs at our institution since 1999.
Our transperitoneal LRP technique has arms adducted by the patient's side.The table is set loops are gently retracted out of the pelvic cavity.An inverted U-shaped peritoneotomy incision along the undersurface of the anterior abdominal wall is made.Subsequently, the endopelvic fascia is freed from the fatty tissue bilaterally and incised using a J-hook eletrocautery or cold endoshears.The Foley catheter is replaced by a metallic urethral dilator to enhance needle orientation during dorsal vein ligation.The dorsal vein complex ligature is created with a 2-0 Vicryl (CT-1 needle) stitch.The posterior bladder neck is deeply scored with a J-hook eletrocautery at the proposed line of transection at a safe distance with a Hem-o-lock clip and divided.The NVB is released in an antegrade manner along the convexity of the prostate, using a combination of sharp scissor cuts and gentle blunt teasing with a soft laparoscopic Kittner.The dorsal vein complex is divided, followed by apical dissection and urethral transection.Urethrovesical anastomosis is accomplished with a watertight double-needle running suture technique using 2-0 Monocryl in two different colors.A 20 Fr Foley catheter is inserted into the bladder.A Jackson-Pratt drain is placed in the pelvis, the specimen is removed by extending the umbilical port site incision and port sites are closed.
The extraperitoneal approach provides a rapid access to the space of Retzius, minimizes bowel complications and intra-abdominal organ damage.However, recent studies comparing transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal approaches have not found any proach may be preferable in obese patients as it may shorten the distance between the trocar insertion site dominal surgery where time-consuming adhesiolysis is avoided and the risk of bowel injury is minimized (14).
LRP renewed interest in the periprostatic neuroanatomy because of the superior image quality tions during LRP have mainly focused on the nerve sparing procedure.Gill et al. have reported the use of intraoperative transrectal ultrasound monitoring to identify the course of the NVBs (18).With this technique, it was possible to substantially reduce the positive surgical margin rate (19).
Similar to the LRP technique, the RALP technique has also been described using the intraperitoneal or extraperitoneal approaches, but most surgeons prefer the transperitoneal approach because of larger working space and the potential for tension free urethrovesicle anastamosis.The Da Vinci robotic system (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) is the only robotic platform available providing superior ilmore than 250 RALPs at the Cleveland Clinic using either the transperitoneal or the extraperitoneal approach.The basic surgical principles do not differ used with an initially placed 12 mm port at the left superior margin of the umbilicus.Port positioning is similar for both the transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches (Figure -2).For the transperitoneal approach, access is achieved using the Veres needle, while extraperitoneal approach involves cut-down and dilation of the extraperitoneal space with 10 mm MA, USA) which is advanced in the midline between the rectus muscle and into the retropubic space prior fascia incised bilaterally and the dorsal venous complex is oversewn with Nº.1 Vicryl suture.The bladder neck is incised and the seminal vesicles and vasa are dissected out.These are divided along with the prostatic pedicles using a harmonic dissecting scalpel.
preserving the NVBs.The urethra is divided and the in an Endocatch bag.Urethrovesical anastamosis is performed with 2/0 Monocryl and 2/0 Caprosyn sutures in a continuous running fashion.

OPERATIVE OUTCOMES
Regardless of the approach used, mortality associated with radical prostatectomy is low.The recently published reports comparing the different techniques have mainly focused on the perioperative outcomes such as OR time, estimated blood loss, analgesic requirement, length of hospitalization, duration of catheterization, and postoperative complications.Table-1 summarizes the perioperative outcomes of RRP, LRP and RALP from select large series in the published literature from pioneering centers of excellence.
In all approaches, small abdominal incision translates into low pain scores.Earlier reports suggested reduced analgesic requirements with LRP compared to RRP (8), though others reported comparable rates (20).The potential for blood loss is consistently reduced in the LRP and RALP series and is a result of the pneumoperitoneum pressure and excellent visualization.Likewise, overall complications appear to be marginally lower after LRP and RALP.
Traditionally, the duration of catheterization studies report shorter catheterization periods (7 to10 days).For the laparoscopic and robotic techniques, the duration of catheterization is usually in the range of 5 to 7 days.OR time appears to be shorter for RRP compared to RALP and LRP, but increasing experience with minimally invasive approaches, OR times will probably decrease.

ONCOLOGIC OUTCOMES
The primary goal of prostate cancer surgery is to provide satisfactory oncologic outcomes.Although, ideal measures in determining long-term oncologic control, biochemical progression and margin positivity are the two commonly used indices to assess oncologic outcomes following RRP, LRP and/or RALP.While RRP provides long-term oncologic control for up to 15 years, limited follow-up is available for the minimally invasive approaches.In patients who survival estimate rates were 99% and 98%, respectively (21).Guillonneau et al. evaluated their results in 1000 patients after LRP and reported an overall biochemical progression-free survival rate of 90.5% the biochemical progression-free survival rates were et al. reported 95% PSA progression-free survival rate at a mean follow-up of 12-months in a series of 600 patients who underwent extraperitoneal LRP in 500 patients who underwent retrograde LRP (24).Patel et al. reported a PSA progression-free survival rate of 95% in 200 patients who underwent RALP with a mean follow-up of 9.7 months (25).

Comparison of Radical Prostatectomy Techniques
Positive margin rate is another method of assessment of oncologic outcomes that is readily available giving a prediction for long-term oncologic outcome.Studies from large series demonstrated an overall positive surgical margin rate of 21-28% for The number of comparative studies (RRP vs. LRP vs. RALP) is limited in the literature.The true advantages and disadvantages of each technique will appear only after objective comparisons in prospective studies with long-term follow-up.DiMarco et al. rates between RRP (18.6%) and RALP (16.5%) (26).
garding the positive margin rate between RRP (19%) and LRP (22%) (27).In another study by Ahlering et al., the positive surgical margin rate was 20% for RRP vs. 16.7% for RALP (28).None of these comparative studies showed any disadvantage in terms of oncologic outcomes for the minimally invasive approaches.Furthermore, there has been no report on port site recurrence following LRP or RALP.

Continence
of continence and the way that the information is obtained.The best way to analyze this outcome is undoubtedly the use of validated questionnaires.
or no pad per day, is reported to be between 90-92% for RRP, 82-96% for LRP and 95-96% for RALP (Table - procedure, the rate of potency in patients younger than 55 years old undergoing LRP with unilateral nerve-For the same group, but with bilateral nervesparing procedures, the potency rate for LRP was 77.8% vs. 69% for RRP.In patients between 55 to 65 years old with unilateral nerve-sparing procedures, the potency group, but with bilateral nerve-sparing procedure, the potency rate for LRP was 60% vs. 52% for RRP.
In patients older than 65 years old, the potency rates were lower, but comparable results were found for the two groups.
In a single institutional study, Abbou et al.
are no comparative studies that show inferior results in terms of potency for LRP compared to RRP.However, it is important to remember that these comparative studies are limited to different patient characteristics and sample sizes.

COST CONSIDERATIONS
In the era of minimally invasive approaches, the economic issues are important.Lotan et al. reported that RRP had a cost advantage of $487 over dollar Da Vinci robotic system (the original system) There are three robotic systems currently available.The original three-arm system, the four-arm system (approximately 1.4 million dollar) and the new "S-model" (approximately 1.6 million dollar) and with different purchasing and maintenance costs (maintenance costs are approximately 10% of the purchasing cost).The additional cost of disposables is approximately $2,000 US/case.This is of extreme importance as costs are one of the main factors institutions take into consideration when acquiring new technologies.
The economics of radical prostatectomy in Europe differ from the USA, because of different hospitalization mentality (patients usually stay in the hospital until the urinary catheter is removed in Europe) (24).Using this methodology LRP represented this is attributed to the reduced hospitalization with LRP (6 days) compared to RRP (8 days) (8).
Although RRP is considered the least expensive at present, LRP related expenses have sigequivalence to RRP.On the other hand, the RALP technique will certainly need a substantial decrease in the cost of the robotic system and other relevant robotic instruments as well as maintenance fees in order to achieve wider global acceptance and application.
The advantages and disadvantages of RRP,

CONCLUSIONS
Despite only intermediate term follow-up being available for LRP and RALP techniques, current available data demonstrates that laparoscopic and robotic prostatectomy procedures achieve oncologic and functional outcomes similar to the well established technique of open radical prostatectomy.Indeed, in most studies, better results are achieved with LRP and RALP in terms of blood loss, convalescence and cosmetics when compared to RRP.
However, LRP is associated with a steep learning curve and longer operative time.The RALP technique holds potential for better ergonomics.The initial purchase and maintenance fees for the robotic platform are still expensive.Efforts to reduce the cost for RALP must be materialized for this technique to compete with others worldwide.
After intermediate term follow-up, LRP and RALP techniques have already gained wider acceptance in the treatment of localized prostate cancer.With an expected reduce in the cost and decrease in the learning curve and OR time, minimally invasive prostatectomy techniques have the potential to be the gold standard in the treatment of localized prostate cancer worldwide.However, long term data and adequately designed comparative studies are clearly needed to assess the inherent advantages and disadvantages of the three different techniques.

EDITORIAL COMMENT
For patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, choosing whether and how to treat can be a daunting task.The widespread implementation of minimally invasive surgical approaches has dramatically altered the landscape of treatment options.Short-term periopin regard to more meaningful outcomes such as cancer control, urinary continence, and sexual function methodologically sound comparisons to open surgery are lacking (1).
Recognizing the inherent limitations in the published literature (e.g.patient selection, tumor characteristics, and surgeon experience), the authors do an excellent job of concisely and evenhandedly reviewing the three most common surgical approaches to radical prostatectomy.In light of the multiple options, we agree the impact of surgeon skill and experience is likely to be far more important than whether he or she looks at the prostate on a television monitor or via an open incision (2)(3)(4)(5).
Further, an honest understanding of the merits and limitations of the individual procedures will only be garnered when validated questionnaires are uniformly used to assess functional recovery and quality of life.The inconsistent use of these metrics coupled with the potential for selection bias skews the available data and accounts for the wide range of reported outcomes.
The percentage of radical prostatectomies performed laparoscopically or robotically has been and 2005, and will likely continue to do so (4).However, we must be careful of "gizmo idolatry" on the block use of a gizmo" which can "bestow on the physician a mantle of expertise, competence, and pre-eminence even if there is little or no evidence diligent review of outcomes, as this and other studies undertake, will be of utmost importance to ensure that we are offering patients the optimal treatment and not just the latest gizmo.

Table 1 -
Operative outcomes of RRP, LRP and RALP from select series.Data currently available suggests that similar rates for return to continence may be achieved for the three different techniques (Table-2).

Table 2 -
Oncologic and functional outcomes of RRP, LRP and RALP from select series.

Table 3 -
Advantages and disadvantages of RRP, LRP and RALP.