Download PDF
Der Klinikarzt 2009; 38(9): 392-398
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1242043
Schwerpunkt

© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Die operative Therapie des Prostatakarzinoms im Wandel – Vergleich zwischen offener und laparoskopisch–roboterassistierter radikaler Prostatektomie

Surgical therapy of the carcinoma of the prostate is undergoing changes – Comparison between open and laparascopy–robotic assisted radical prostatectomyDavid Schilling1 , Bastian Amend1 , Sèverine Huber2 , Arnulf Stenzl2 , Hubert John3
  • 1Klinik für Urologie, Eberhard–Karls–Universität, Tübingen,beide Autoren haben gleichwertig zu dem Artikel beigetragen
  • 2Klinik für Urologie, Eberhard–Karls–Universität, Tübingen
  • 3Abteilung für Urologie, Kantonsspital Winterthur, Winterthur
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
02 October 2009 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Seit fast 10 Jahren wird neben der offenen und laparoskopischen radikalen Prostatektomie auch die roboterassistierte laparoskopische Prostatektomie angeboten. Neben den allgemeinen Vorteilen minimalinvasiver Verfahren, wie geringeres Gewebetrauma, geringerer Blutverlust und kürzere Krankenhausaufenthaltsdauer, bietet das Operationssystem dem Operateur die Vorteile einer 3–dimensionalen Sicht auf das Operationsgebiet und sämtliche Freiheitsgrade des menschlichen Handgelenks für die intrakorporal liegenden Instrumente. Diesen Vorteilen stehen zum einen die fehlende taktile Rückmeldung an den Operateur, die tendenziell längeren Operationszeiten und die hohen Behandlungskosten entgegen. In den wenigen vergleichenden Studien konnte bisher kein Unterschied bezüglich der mittelfristigen funktionellen und onkologischen Ergebnisse gefunden werden.

Ziel dieses Artikels ist es, dem Leser das roboterassistierte Operationsverfahren zu erläutern und anhand der zur Verfügung stehenden Studien die Unterschiede zur offenen Operation aufzuzeigen.

For nearly ten years now, robotic–assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy has been offered besides open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Apart from the general advantages of minimally invasive procedures such as low tissue trauma, little blood loss and shorter hospital stay, the operation system offers the surgeon the advantages of 3–dimensional view on the operating area and any degrees of freedom of the human wrist joint for the intra–corporally placed instruments. Opposed to these advantages are the lack of tactile feedback to the surgeon, rather longer operating times and high treatment costs. In the few comparative studies no differences with regard to intermediate–term functional and oncological results could be found yet.

The aim of this paper is to explain the robotic–assisted surgical technique to the reader and to comment on the differences to open surgery on the basis of the available studies.

Key words

Robotic–assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy - RALP - radical prostatectomy - RRP - daVinci - minimally–invasive

Literatur

  • 1 Abbou C, Hoznek A, Salomon L. et al. . Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot.  J Urol. 2001;  165 1964-1966
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Abbou C, Salomon L, Hoznek A. et al. . Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: preliminary results.  Urology. 2000;  55 630-634
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Ahlering T, Woo D, Eichel L. et al. . Robot–assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon's outcomes.  Urology. 2004;  63 819-822
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Binder J, Kramer W.. Robotically–assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.  BJU Int. 2001;  87 408-410
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Derweesh I, Kupelian P, Zippe C. et al. . Continuing trends in pathological stage migration in radical prostatectomy specimens.  Urol Oncol. 2004;  22 300-306
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Dillioglugil O, Leibman B, Leibman N. et al. . Risk factors for complications and morbidity after radical retropubic prostatectomy.  J Urol. 1997;  157 1760-1767
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Drouin S, 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
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Farnham S, Webster T, Herrell S. et al. . Intraoperative blood loss and transfusion requirements for robotic–assisted radical prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy.  Urology. 2006;  67 360-363
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 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
    PubMed
  • 10 Fracalanza S, Ficarra V, Cavalleri S. et al. . Is robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy less invasive than retropubic radical prostatectomy? Results from a prospective, unrandomized, comparative study.  BJU Int. 2008;  101 1145-1149
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Hu J, Wang Q, Pashos C. et al. . Utilization and outcomes of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 2278-2284
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Hull G, Rabbani F, Abbas F. et al. . Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients.  J Urol. 2002;  167 528-534
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Krambeck A, Dimarco D, Rangel L. et al. . Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot–assisted techniques.  BJU Int. 2009;  103 448-453
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B. et al. . Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot–assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience.  Urology. 2002;  60 864-868
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Miller J, Smith A, Kouba E. et al. . Prospective evaluation of short–term impact and recovery of health related quality of life in men undergoing robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open radical prostatectomy.  J Urol. 2007;  178
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Nelson B, Kaufman M, Broughton G. et al. . Comparison of length of hospital stay between radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.  J Urol. 2007;  177 929-931
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Schuessler W, Schulam P, Clayman R. et al. . Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short–term experience.  Urology. 1997;  50 854-857
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Secin F, Koppie T, Scardino P. et al. . Bilateral cavernous nerve interposition grafting during radical retropubic prostatectomy: Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center experience.  J Urol. 2007;  177 664-668
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Smith Jr. J, Chan R, Chang S. et al. . A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy.  J Urol. 2007;  178 2389-2390
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Stolzenburg J, Truss M, Do M. et al. . Evolution of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE) – technical improvements and development of a nerve–sparing, potency–preserving approach.  World J Urol. 2003;  21 147-152
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M.. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot–assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution.  BJU Int. 2003;  92 205-210
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Walsh P.. Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique.  J Urol. 1998;  160 2418-2424
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Webster T, Herrell S, Chang S. et al. . Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of postoperative pain.  J Urol. 2005;  174
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Zincke H, Oesterling J, Blute M. et al. . Long–term (15 years) results after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized (stage T2c or lower) prostate cancer.  J Urol. 1994;  152 1850-1857
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar

Korrespondenz

Dr. med. David Schilling

Klinik für Urologie Eberhard–Karls–Universität Tübingen, UKT

Hoppe–Seyler–Str. 3

72076 Tübingen

Fax: 07071/2984169

Email: david.schilling@med.uni-tuebingen.de