V O L U M E 6 8 ...

V O L U M E
6 8
.
N. 5
.
O T T O B R E
2 0 1 3

MINERVA CHIR 2013;68:499-512
Robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in 2013
A. ALI, D. P. NGUYEN, A. TEWARI
Robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy
has surpassed open radical prostatectomy
as the most common surgical approach for
radical prostatectomy in the United States. In
this article we briefly describe the evolution
of this minimally invasive technique. The current diagnostic approaches of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and fusion
biopsy used in preoperative workup of the
patients are discussed, followed by a description of risk stratified athermal nerve sparing
approach with total anatomical reconstruction. Finally we present a critical appraisal
of the published oncological, continence and
potency outcomes.
Key words: Prostatectomy - Robotics - Prostatic
neoplasms.
P
rostate cancer (PC) is the most common
non-cutaneous malignancy among men
in Western countries. An estimated 30,000
will die of the disease in the United States
and 70,000 in Europe in 2013.1, 2 Widespread
use of prostate specific antigen (PSA) as a
biomarker for prediction of PC has led to
a dramatic shift towards early detection of
organ-confined disease in a younger patient
population.3, 4 For those patients with clinically organ-confined disease, radical prostatectomy (RP) remains a commonly used
Corresponding author: Dr. A. Tewari, MD, M. Ch, Center
for Prostate Cancer, Weill Cornell Medical College and New
York Presbyterian Hospital, Lefrak Center of Robotic Surgery, NYPH, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York Presbyterian Hospital, 525 East 68th Street, Starr 900, New York,
NY 10021, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Vol. 68 - No. 5
Center for Prostate Cancer
Lefrak Center of Robotic Surgery
Department of Urology
Weill Cornell Medical College
New York Presbyterian Hospital
New York, NY, USA
treatment modality, and may be the preferred option based on individual patient’s
cancer risk, age and comorbidities.5 It offers
excellent cancer control with disease specific survival rates of 93% to 95% after 15
years of follow-up.6
Early on RP was not considered the firstline of localized PC management due to
the dreaded complications of incontinence
and erectile dysfunction. A better understanding of the pelvic anatomy as well as
important advances in surgical technique
over a century after the first radical perineal prostatectomy was performed by Young
in 1904 7 have led to its current widespread
acceptance. The retropubic approach for
RP which allowed access to pelvic lymph
nodes for tumor staging was described
by Millin in 1947.8 Later, anatomical studies in 1980’s led to the development of
modified radical retropubic prostatectomy
which integrated better understanding
of DVC(Dorsal Venous Complex),9 neurovascular bundles (NVBs) 10 and urinary
sphincter.11 The incorporation of these
new anatomical findings to surgical tech-
MINERVA CHIRURGICA
499
ALI
ROBOT ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY IN 2013
nique decreased intraoperative blood loss,
preserved potency and decreased urinary
incontinence.12, 13 The first laparoscopic
RP was performed in 1991 by Schuessler.14
Over the next decade, advancement in optics, digital imaging and software led to
further refinement of laparoscopic technique.15, 16 The next major advancement
was with the development of da Vinci
Surgical system (Intuitive Surgical®, Mountain View, California). The first robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP)
using this robotic interface was performed
in May 2000 by Binder and Kramer.17 The
first generation da Vinci ® Surgical system
had three robotic arms, two for instruments
and one for endoscope. Using this masterslave surgical system, surgeons were able
to view the surgical field three dimensionally in 10X magnification using stereo-endoscope lens and camera. Moreover, surgical instrument tips had a 360° range of
movement. In the United States, RALP was
pioneered and established as treatment for
patients with PC at Vattikuti Urology Institute.18, 19 By 2008, more than 60% of radical
prostatectomies in the USA were RALP.20
We herein review the current surgical
management of PC with emphasis on RALP.
We offer a detailed description of our RALP
technique including individualized NS and
the addition of dynamic detrusor cuff trigonoplasty. Finally, complications, outcomes
and economics of RALP are discussed.
Indications for RALP
A complete medical history and physical
examination including DRE along with serum PSA are done as part of PC screening.
In case of an elevated serum PSA level, a
transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate needle biopsy can be done to exclude
or confirm PC. Indications for RALP are
identical to those for open RP and include
patients with biopsy proven, clinically localized PC without clinical or radiographic
evidence of metastasis who have consented
to the procedure. Patients with severe cardiopulmonary disease unable to tolerate gen-
500
eral anesthesia and those with uncorrected
bleeding diatheses are not candidates for
RALP
Preoperative workup:
current approaches
Two MRI-based imaging techniques are
used in our institution in order to optimize
surgical planning and tune the procedure
to each individual patient’s unique requirement based on preoperative disease characteristics.
Targeted fusion biopsy
In place of standard TRUS guided biopsy fusion biopsy may be done. Three
techniques of fusion have been described:
Cognitive fusion, In-Bore MRI-MRI Fusion
and MRI-TRUS Fusion. Cognitive fusion
simply requires the TRUS operator to target areas where previously reviewed MRI
demonstrated significant lesions. This technique however quick and easy is subject
to human error. In-Bore MRI-MRI fusion is
performed within the MRI tube. It fuses a
previous MRI with a synchronous MRI for
biopsy needle localization. This technique
requires two MRI sessions and is thus time
consuming and more expensive. Finally,
MRI-TRUS fusion is done in two steps: first
a multiparametric endorectal MRI is done;
the studies are then loaded onto a software
on which the radiologist marks the prostate gland and the regions of interest for
biopsy in different slices and views of the
MRI, known as segmentation (Figure 1).
This information is then loaded on to a device which then fuses the segmented MRI
with real-time ultrasound to create a threedimensional real-time reconstruction of the
prostate on which the aiming and tracking
of biopsy site is done (Figure 2). This technique can be done in an outpatient setting
under local anesthesia within a few minutes. Currently five devices approved by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are
available for MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy. For
instance, the Artemis device (Eigen, Grass
MINERVA CHIRURGICA
October 2013
ROBOT ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY IN 2013
ALI
A
B
C
D
Figure 1.—From top left clockwise. A) Axial T2 weighted 3T MRI with endorectal coil showing two regions of interests
(Red high suspicion, Green Low suspicion); B) coronal section interpolated image based on the axial section; C) it
shows a 3D rendering of the prostate after segmentation in light brown color, regions of interests in red and green;
D) axial diffusion weighted imaging showing the marked regions (Red region of interest has an ADC value of 784).
Figure 2.—MRI-TRUS Fusion with planned targets. MRI on the top left quadrant with the planned target. Bottom right
quadrant showing 3D view of the region of interest with planned target site.
Vol. 68 - No. 5
MINERVA CHIRURGICA
501
ALI
ROBOT ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY IN 2013
Valley, California, USA) has a mechanical
arm and is capable of tracking and recording biopsy locations with three dimensional
ultrasound and fusion of real-time ultrasound with MRI.
An initial study using the Artemis at
UCLA in 171 patients who underwent
prostate biopsies using the Artemis platform investigated 106 patients under active
surveillance for confirmed PC and 65 patients with increasing PSA, prior negative
conventional biopsy.21 PC was detected in
53% of all men. MR-TRUS fusion biopsy
based targeted cores had higher yield of
21% as compared to 7% for systemic biopsy cores. Moreover, a higher number of
Gleason 7 cores (36% vs. 24%) were detected.
Multiparametric endorectal MRI
The use of MRI for the diagnosis and
staging of PC has increased over the past
5 years. The ideal 3T (Tesla) mp-eMRI
comprises of T1 and T2 weighted images (T2WI) for demonstrating high signal blood product and demonstrating the
anatomy, respectively, as well as functional
imaging which includes diffusion weighted
(DW) imaging, dynamic contrast enhanced
(DCE) imaging and magnetic resonance
spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) with the use
of pelvic phased-array coil along with an
endorectal coil on a high field-strength
A
magnet. To obtain sub millimeter-resolution which are necessary for local staging,
T2 weighted images acquired should have
thickness of 3 mm with a 14 cm field of
view.22 PC foci commonly demonstrate decreased signal intensity relative to the highsignal intensity normal peripheral zone on
T2 weighted images.23 For the detection of
PC the sensitivity of MRI ranges from 60 to
96%, but has poor specificity.24 However,
to detect EPE or seminal vesicle (SV) invasion the sensitivity and specificity of MRI is
73% to 80% and 97-100% respectively (Figure 3).25 DW-MRI allows the mapping of
diffusion of water molecules within tissue.
Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) is
helpful in differentiating between low, intermediate and high risk Gleason scores.26
DW-MRI along with T2 weighted imaging
has 89% sensitivity and 91% specificity for
detection of PC.27 DCE-MRI assesses the
micro vascular changes such as blood flow,
density and capillary perfusion for detection of malignant PC lesions. This is done
by dynamically running a T1-weighted sequence after intravenous administration
of gadolinium chelate. MRSI assess the
relative citrate and choline concentrations
which are overlaid on T2 images. The addition of these functional scans significantly
improves detection of peripheral zone lesions when compared to T2WI alone.28, 29
Barentsz et al. described a standardized
interpretation and reporting guidelines for
B
C
Figure 3.—3T MP-MRI and histopathology of a patient with extra prostatic extension who received grade 4 nerve sparing and had negative surgical margins. A) T2W axial view showing a hypointense lesion in the left peripheral zone
marked by arrows; B) corresponding DWI ADC map showing restricted diffusion with an ADC value of 435 marked
by red outline; C) Corresponding T2W coronal view showing the same lesion marked by arrows in the left peripheral
zoneextending from apex to base.
502
MINERVA CHIRURGICA
October 2013
ROBOT ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY IN 2013
mp-eMRI known as PI-RADS(Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) which
could lead to broader and more reliable
adoption of mp-eMRI.30
At our institution 3T mp-eMRI findings
are used to improve surgical management
and optimize the functional outcomes in
individual patients based on their own
unique disease and anatomical characteristics. The information retrieved from 3T mpeMRI helps in making informed decisions
during surgery for achieving negative surgical margins and preserving periprostatic
tissue and nerves which control continence
and sexual functions.31
RALP: Surgical technique
Positioning
Once the patient has been put under
general anesthesia, he is placed in steep
trendelenburg position with arms tucked
and padded on the side and legs securely
abducted on a split leg table. The stomach
and bladder are decompressed by placement of orogastric tube and urethral catheter under aseptic precautions.
Port placement
A pneumoperitoneum is created by insufflation using a Veress needle inserted
infraumbilically. Once adequate insufflation
is done, a 12 mm trocar is placed supraumbilically or at umbilicus for the placement
of stereoscopic-endoscope. A total of five
trocars, three for robotic arms and two for
assistants are placed. Two 8mm pararectal
trocars are placed on the right and left side
for second and third robotic arms. Another
8 mm trocar is placed in the left lumbar region for the second and third robotic arms.
Additionally, two trocars of 12 mm and 5
mm for assistant ports are placed on the
patient’s right side. Once the placement of
trocars is done, the da Vinci robot is moved
into position between the patient’s legs and
the arms of the robot are brought above the
patient and docked.
Vol. 68 - No. 5
ALI
Surgical procedure
The transperitoneal anterior approach for
RALP is as here described.
Dropping
the bladder
Once intra-abdominal access is gained
a careful inspection is carried out, urachus
and medial umbilical ligaments are identified and adhesions are lysed if present. A
wide inverted U-shaped incision is made
starting lateral to the left medial umbilical ligament and extending anteromedially
dividing the urachus in the midline to the
right medial umbilical ligament using monopolar cautery. This U-shaped incision is
then extended bilaterally to the vas deferens
(VD).
The retropubic space is then developed
by blunt dissection within the space of
Retzius. This exposes pubis, endopelvic fascia, bladder, puboprostatic ligaments and
prostate. Athermal dissection is then carried
out within the periprostatic space between
the endopelvic fascia and lateral prostatic
fascia (LPF). During development of the retropubic space and incision of the endopelvic fascia, we proceed distally and medially.
Meticulous dissection is performed to minimize disruption of the puboprostatic ligaments and arcus tendineus until the urethra
is exposed and there is a clear space for
the placement of the dorsal venous stitch.
The arcus tendineus and puboprostatic ligaments are used later in the anterior reconstruction.
Bladder
neck dissection
Using a 30° downward angle lens for visualization, the prostate is held on either side
using blunt robotic instruments and pulled
proximally until there is a sudden feeling of
“giving way” at the junction with collapsed
bladder. This technique enables relatively
easy identification of the prostatovesical
junction (PVJ) and this techniques is known
as “bimanual bladder neck pinch”.32 Once
the PVJ is identified, the bladder neck is incised in the midline using Maryland bipolar
MINERVA CHIRURGICA
503
ALI
ROBOT ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY IN 2013
forceps and hot shears. Dissection is carried
out until the Foley catheter is identified, the
tip is identified and the catheter is grasped
by the left-side assistant with firm anterior
traction. The dissection then proceeds laterally. With traction on the shaft of the catheter, the exact location for the posterior incision becomes visible and the mucosa of the
posterior bladder neck is now incised precisely. After dissection through the mucosa,
the retrotrigonal fibromuscular layer is identified.33 Dissection then proceeds athermally
to preserve the neural hammock surrounding the prostate and the trigonal nerves until
the shiny white surface of the VD is seen.
Athermal
dissection of
SV
and
VD
The SV and VD are identified and dissected athermally, the ends are clipped
and cut. The cut ends are then lifted by the
fourth arm of the robot to develop a plane
between the SV and the surrounding fascia,
arteries entering into the SV are identified.
These are cut using clips and sharp dissection. Every attempt is made to preserve the
NVB which are present lateral to the SV.
Both the SV and VD are then pulled upward. In patients who are appropriate candidates for nerve sparing, an intracompartmental SV dissection is performed.34
Risk
stratified grades of
NS
Nerve sparing has been found to be independently associated with post-operative
recovery of erectile function.35 Different
variations of NS technique have been described in the literature. Use of cautery-free
NS which significantly improved return of
sexual function was reported by Ahlering
et al.36 The “Veil of Aphrodite” technique in
which dissection of the prostatic fasica is
carried to the prostatic surface, and periprostatic tissue is released in a relatively avascular plane was described by Menon et al.37
A clipless antegrade nerve sparing technique was described by Chien et al.38
Our risk stratified approach to athermal,
traction free NS during RALP is based on the
patient’s preoperative findings which pre-
504
dict ipsilateral EPE. This preoperative decision making model incorporates serum PSA
level, clinical stage, biopsy Gleason score
and MRI findings and strives to achieve the
competing goals of cancer clearance and
preservation of continence and potency
by varying degress of preservation of the
nerve fibers in different fascial planes (Figure 4).31 These degrees of preservation are
described as follows:
—— Grade 1 NS: The Denonvilliers’ fascia and the LPF are incised just outside the
prostatic capsule to preserve the neural
hammock. We also describe this as medial
venous plane for complete hammock preservation. This is the greatest degree of NS
possible, and we perform this procedure for
patients with no-to-minimal risk of EPE.
—— Grade 2 NS: The Denonvilliers’ fascia
(leaving deeper layers on the rectum) and
LPF are incised just outside the layer of veins
of the prostate capsule. This allows the preservation of most large neural trunks and ganglia and is used for patients at low risk of EPE.
—— Grade 3 NS (partial/incremental): Incision is made through the outer compartment of the LPF (leaving some yellow adipose and neural tissue on the specimen),
excising all layers of Denonvilliers’ fascia.
This is performed for patients with moderate risk of EPE because some of the medial
trunks are sacrificed, whereas the lateral
trunks are preserved.
Figure 4.—Risk stratification algorithm for nerve sparing.
PSA levels in nanograms per milliliter. Risk grade 1: All
criteria should be met; Risk grade 2-4 any two criteria or
magnetic resonance imaging findings. If MRI findings are
not available, only clinical criteria are used.
EPE: extra prostatic extension; eMRI: endorectal magnetic resonance imaging; PSA: prostate specific antigen.
MINERVA CHIRURGICA
October 2013
ROBOT ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY IN 2013
—— Grade 4 NS (non-NS): These patients
have high risk of EPE and are not candidates for NS. In such cases, we perform a
wide excision of the LPF and Denonvilliers’
fascia containing most of the peri-prostatic
neurovascular tissue. In selected patients,
we attempt nerve advancement of the identifiable ends of the NVB.
These planes are developed athermally
by sharp and blunt dissection, proceeding
distally toward the apex and laterally on
both sides. At the lateral attachments, the
perforating arteries enter into the prostatic
capsule. They are sharply cut after being
secured by clips and the plane is created
between the capsule and the medial aspect
of the pedicular vessels.39-41
Circumapical
dissection of the urethra
As the prostatic apex is a frequent site of
positive surgical margin (PSM), extra care
has to be taken during apical dissection.
Once the prostate is mobilized, it is lifted
anteriorly and a plane is developed along
the posterior surface of the prostate. At this
time the a few layers of Denonvillers fascia
and the rectourethralis muscle covers the
posterior prostatic apex. Once the prostate
is lifted anteriorly, blunt dissection is carried
out to develop a distinct plane between the
prostatic apex and the urethra. To gain an
A
ALI
additional 1-2 mm of ventral membranous
urethral length prior to transection of the
urethra posteriorly, it is swept away from
the apex. Once transected the foley catheter
is seen and then the transection of the urethra is completed circumferentially via the
retroapical approach.42 The DVC is ligated
using CT-1 needle and 0-polyglactin suture.
Once the prostate is free, lymph node dissection is done and the specimen is bagged
(Figure 5).
Dynamic
detrusor cuff trigonoplasty
The anterior bladder is held using the
4th arm of the robot and the bladder opening, mucosa and uretric orifices are identified. The posterior extent of the bladder
opening is closed using a “tennis racquet”
stich with a 4-0 Biosin suture. The mucosa
is then everted using the same suture and
the posterior gap is covered using a flap of
detrusor muscle and approximated in the
midline using a 3-0 V-Lock suture to support the bladder neck creating a detrusor
cuff. This posterior reinforcement is based
on the principles of Pagano (Figure 6).43
Posterior
reconstruction
Using a few shallow bites from the posterior aspect of the Denonviller’s fascia, the
B
Figure 5.—Circum-apical dissection. A) Shows the posterior aspect of the prostate gland and a good length of membranous urethra is clearly visible; C) Shows the Foley catheter tip being pulled from the transected urethra posteriorly.
P: prostate; U: membranous urethra
Vol. 68 - No. 5
MINERVA CHIRURGICA
505
ALI
ROBOT ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY IN 2013
A
B
Figure 6.—Dynamic detrusor cuff trigonoplasty. A) The posterior flap of detrusor is clearly seen. A running suture
is passed to approximate the flaps medially; B) the posterior detrusor flap is approximated using a running suture
cuffing the bladder neck.
suture is then passed through the retrotrigonal layer and cinched down. The shallow
bites are taken to avoid injury to the underlying nervous tissue.
Anastomosis
and anterior repair
Using a V-lock suture, a two layer anastomosis is completed by synchronized pull
and push technique to cinche the retrotrigonal layer close to rectourethralis.44 A secure
water tight anastomosis is created by mucosa-mucosal, tension-free approximation
and avoidance of neurovascular bundles.
The previously preserved arcus tendinius
are sutured to the detrusor muscle using a
single-knotted suture for the anterior reconstruction.45 This helps in positioning and
stabilizing the vesico-urethral junction.
Supra
pubic catheter placement
The bladder is filled with 180mL of water
and a suprapubic catheter is then inserted
into. The placement of a supra pubic catheter helps in elevation of the bladder to
its normal preoperative position and also
serves as a urinary diversion route in cases which a catheter is not used.46 Finally,
reperitonization is done to restore preoperative anatomy (Figure 7).
506
Postoperative management
A suprapubic catheter, bulb drain, and
occasionally a Foley catheter are left in
place. Parentral narcotics are used for postoperative pain management. Early ambulation is encouraged to prevent deep venous
thrombosis. The patient is started on a clear
liquid diet and advanced as tolerated. Once
the patient has been taught catheter care, is
ambulatory and tolerating oral pain medication, he is discharged. Patient returns one
week after surgery for catheter removal. Patients then begin Kegel exercises.
Complications
Perioperative complication rate after
RALP ranged from 2.5 to 26% of all cases
and include was follows.47
Hemorrhage
Most studies show that for laparoscopic
RP and RALP blood loss is about 50-200 mL
during the procedure and blood transfusion
rates of 2% or less have been reported.48
This limited blood loss is due to the tamponade effect of the pneumoperitoneum
and possibly due to improved visualization.
MINERVA CHIRURGICA
October 2013
ROBOT ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY IN 2013
A
ALI
B
Figure 7.—Suprapubic catheter placement. A) Supra pubic catheter is inserted through the anterior abdominal wall
and the bladder is held in position for receiving the supra pubic catheter; B) Supra pubic catheter inserted into the
bladder.
A: anterior abdominal wall; PB: pubic bone; SPC: suprapubic catheter; B: bladder.
Excessive bleeding is most often due to injury to the DVC. Rarely the superior epigastric artery can be injured during trocar
insertion. During the procedure increasing
the pneumoperitoneum pressure can help
in controlling minor bleeding.
Rectal injury
Intraoperative rectal injury occurs in 0.7%
to 2.4% cases undergoing RALP and can be
usually managed successfully without open
conversion.49, 50 Large prostates, inflammation and scarred tissue between the anterior
rectal wall and the Denonvillier’s fascia are
the major causes of rectal injuries. These
injuries may occur during dissection of
the posterior prostate plane or the SV, and
some cases may occur at the prostatic apex
when dissecting the neurovascular bundles
or during separation of prostatic apex.
tion. Large prostates or median lobes and
history of prostatitis are known risk factors
for ureteral injury.52
Anastomotic stricture
The incidence of anastomotic stricture
following RALP ranges from less than 2%
to 14.0% and depends on the surgical technique.53, 54 Its occurrence depends mainly
on the surgical technique and surgeon
experience. Other risk factors include patient age, obesity, smoking, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, coronary artery disease,
postoperative bleeding and previous history of transurethral resection of the prostate.55 For patients who develop a postoperative anastomotic stricture, the treatment
options include transurethral anastomotic
dilation or incision and intermittent selfdilation.
Ureter injury
Outcomes
Ureteral injuries occur in lower than 0.5%
of all cases. Most of cases are detected
postoperatively because of urinary leakage
intra- or retroperitoneally.51 Urinary leakage can be easily diagnosed by contrastenhanced computed tomography. Ureteral
injuries usually happen during extended
lymphadenectomy or bladder neck dissec-
Vol. 68 - No. 5
Oncological outcomes
Surgical
margins
In a meta-analysis with data abstracted
from 400 original research articles representing 167 184 open RP, 57 303 laparo-
MINERVA CHIRURGICA
507
ALI
ROBOT ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY IN 2013
15.60% 16 months
294
Murphy (US), 2009 70
400
19.20% 22 months
395
Shikanov (US), 2009 71
1362
19.50% 24 months
380
Carlucci (US), 2009 72
700
11.90% 12 months
309
1100
10.64% 18 months
404
Patel (US), 2010 73
Sharma (UK), 2011 74
500
24%
12 months
500
Xylinas (F), 2011 75
540
30%
24 months
500
Kim (SK), 2011 76
528
27.10% 12 months
495
Tewari (US), 2013 77
2536
Samadi (US), 2013 78
1436
8.50% >12 months 1335
18%
12 months
1105
Potency rate
294
Defination of potency
Krambeck (US), 2009 69
Continence rate, %
1142
Defination of continence
36 months
Follow up method
-
Patients evaluated
2652
FU
Menon (US),2007 68
PSM
Author
Total cases
Table I.—Comparative positive surgical margins, continence rates and potency rates reported in various
studies following RALP.
Self administered,
validated
Self administered,
validated
Self administered,
validated
Self administered,
validated
Self administered,
validated
Self administered,
validated
Self administered,
validated
Self administered,
validated
Physicians
interview
Self administered,
validated
Self administered,
validated
No pad or 1
pad/day
No pad or
security pad
No pad or
security pad
No pad
95.20%
ESI
93%
91.9%
ESI
70%
91.4%
SHIM≥21
62%
80%
ESI
69%
No pad or
security pad
No pad
94%
ESI
83%
97.90%
ESI
96.60%
No pad or
security pad
No leak no pad
91%
IIEF-6≥16
75%
88%
ESI
63%
No pad
95%
ESI
84%
No pad
98%
ESI
92.40%
No pad or
security pad
93%
SHIM≥16
84%
PSM: positive surgical margin; FU: follow-up period
scopic RP, and 62 389 RALP patients (total:
286 876), RALP was found at least equivalent to open RP or laparoscopic RP in terms
of margin rates. The overall PSM rates were
24.2% for open RP patients and 16.2% for
RALP patients; pT2 PSM rates were 16.6%
for open RP patients and 10.7% for RALP
patients; pT3 PSM rates were 42.6% for
open RP, 39.7% for laparoscopic RP, and
37.2% for RALP (Table I).
Intraoperative real time transrectal ultrasound (US) and surgical loupes are new
technical adjuncts that have been recently
reported as a dissection guide to reduce
margin positivity during RP.56
Biochemical Recurrence
The American Urological Association
defines BCR as an initial serum PSA value
equal to or higher than 0.2 ng/mL followed
by a subsequent confirmatory level of PSA
508
of >0.2 ng/mL.57 The European Association
of Urology defines it as PSA values >0.2 ng/
mL, confirmed by two consecutive measurements.58 BCR is positively associated with
the PSM, tumor stage and Gleason score.
PSA elevations developed within the first
2 years following surgery are more often
associated with distant recurrences. Masterson et al., in a retrospective review of 357
open RP patients and 669 RALP patients
who underwent surgery between 1999 and
2010 were compared for biochemical recurrence-free survival rates according to surgical approach, no differences were seen at
24 or 60 months postoperatively between
open RP patients (87% and 71%, respectively) and RALP patients (87% and 73%,
respectively)[59]. Similarly, Magheli et al.,
evaluated 522 patients undergoing RALP
with open RP patients; short-term followup yielded BCR rates of 93% for open and
94% for RALP.60
MINERVA CHIRURGICA
October 2013
ROBOT ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY IN 2013
Functional outcomes
Urinary
continence
Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy is caused due to damage to the
urinary sphincter and alterations in the pelvic floor musculature. Less often, unstable
detrusor muscle can induce urgency incontinence; while post-operative anastomotic
stricture and/or low- compliance bladder
can induce overflow incontinence. Various
surgical techniques such as 1) optimizing
preservation of urethral rhabdosphincter
length, without affecting the positive surgical margin rate;42 2) total reconstruction
of the vesico-urethral junction;45 3) preservation of puboprostatic ligaments and
arcus tendineus. Incising the puboprostatic ligaments just proximal to the prostate
apex, and careful dissection in that plane
is used so as to avoid detaching the urethral rhabdosphincter from its anterolateral
ligamentous attachments;61 4) periurethral
retropubic suspension stitch;62 and 5) nerve
sparing 63 are known to improve urinary
continence outcomes.
Erectile
dysfunction
Postoperative potency rates ranging from
3.4% to 96.6% have been reported. These
rates are largely dependent on the type of
nerve sparing done and the surgical technique.64 For patients with postoperative
erectile dysfunction, the choices of treatment include phosphodiestrase type 5 inhibitors, intraurethral or intracavernosal
vasodilators vacuum erection devices, and
penile prosthesis.
Economics
The increased costs associated with RALP
remain a matter of debate. Bolenz et al.
reported in an analysis of 262 RALP, 220
laparoscopic RP and 161 open RP that the
median direct cost was higher for RALP
than for open RP (RALP: $6,52 [interquartile range (IQR): $6,283-$7,369]; open RP:
Vol. 68 - No. 5
ALI
$4437 [IQR: $3,989–$5,141]; P<0.001).65 The
main differences were in surgical supply
cost (RALP, $2015; ORP, $185) and operating room (OR) cost (RALP, $2798; ORP,
$1611; P<0.001). Lotan et al. found that RRP
was the most cost-effective approach with
a cost advantage of $487 and $1726 over
LP and RALP, respectively.66 This large difference in RRP and RAP costs was due to a
cost of $857 per case for robot purchase and
maintenance, and the high cost of $1705 for
equipment per case.
Moreover, introduction of robotics has resulted in 35.3% of the hospitals that owned
a robot performing 85% of all RPs, with
9% of very high volume hospitals performing 57% of all RPs.67 Cost benefits which
are gained as a result of shorter OR times,
less blood loss and need for transfusions,
shorter hospital stays, less use of pain medication, and earlier return to work after a
shorter convalescence following RALP need
to be factored in future studies.
Conclusions
More than a decade after its introduction RALP has been shown to be a viable
option for patients with clinically localized
PC. The current literature shows that RALP
has overtaken open RP as the primary surgical approach in PC management. Future
studies with longer patients’ follow-up
will address oncological outcomes such as
disease-specific and overall mortality after
RALP. Furthermore, open questions regarding the economics of RALP remain. More
importantly, the patient’s perspective has to
be kept in mind, avoiding hype, portraying
realistic outcomes data so as to avoid post
procedure dissatisfaction and regret.
Riassunto
Prostatectomia laparoscopica robotica nel 2013
La prostatectomia laparoscopica robotica ha superato la prostatectomia radicale a cielo aperto quale approccio chirurgico più diffuso per la prostatectomia radicale negli Stati Uniti. Nel presente articolo
MINERVA CHIRURGICA
509
ALI
ROBOT ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY IN 2013
descriviamo brevemente l’evoluzione di questa tecnica mininvasiva. Vengono discussi gli attuali approcci diagnostici di imaging a risonanza magnetica
multiparametrico e biopsia con fusione utilizzati
nell’iter diagnostico preoperatorio del paziente,
seguiti da una descrizione dell’approccio atermico
di preservazione del nervo con stratificazione del
rischio e ricostruzione anatomica totale. Infine, presentiamo una valutazione critica degli esiti pubblicati relativi a oncologia, continenza e potenza.
Parole chiave: Prostatectomia - Robotica - Tumori
prostatici.
References
  1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics,
2013. Cancer J Clin 2013;63:11-30.
  2. Malvezzi M, Bertuccio P, Levi F, La Vecchia C, Negri
E. European cancer mortality predictions for the year
2013. Ann Oncol 2013;24:792-800.
  3. Jemal A, Ward E, Thun M. Declining death rates reflect progress against cancer. PLoS One 2010: 5:e9584.
  4. Jang TL, Yossepowitch O, Bianco F, Scardino PT. Low
risk prostate cancer in men under age 65: the case for
definitive treatment. Urol Oncol 2007;25:510.
  5. Cooperberg MR, Vickers AJ, Broering JM, Carroll PR.
Comparative risk adjusted mortality outcomes after
primary surgery, radiotherapy, or androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Cancer
2010;116:5226-34.
  6. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, Garmo H,
Stark JR, Busch C et al. Radical prostatectomy versus
watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. New Engl J
Med 2011;364:1708-17.
  7. Young HH. The early diagnosis and radical cure of
carcinoma of the prostate: being a study of 40 cases
and presentation of a radical operation which was
carried out in four cases. Johns Hopkins Hosp Bull
1905;16:315-21.
  8. Millin T. Retropubic Urinary Surgery: E. & S. Livingstone; 1947.
  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
10. Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical
prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J
Urol 1982;128:492.
11. Oelrich TM, Department of Anatomy MSI, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI 48109. The urethral sphincter muscle in the male. Am J Anatomy
1980;158:229-46.
12. Walsh PC. Radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer provides durable cancer control with
excellent quality of life: a structured debate. J Urol
2000;163:1802.
13. Nielsen ME, Schaeffer EM, Marschke P, Walsh PC.
High anterior release of the levator fascia improves
sexual function following open radical retropubic
prostatectomy. J Urol 2008;180:2557-64.
14. Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, Kavoussi
LR. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial shortterm experience. Urology 1997;50:854-7.
15. Abbou CC, Salomon L, Hoznek A, Antiphon P, Cicco
A, Saint F et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy:
preliminary results. Urology 2000;55:630-3.
510
16. Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris technique. J Urol
2000;163:1643-9.
17. Binder J, Department of Urology and Paediatric Urology UH, Johann‐Wolfgang‐Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Kramer W, Department of
Urology and Paediatric Urology UH, Johann‐Wolfgang‐Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Robotically‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2001;87:408-10.
18. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Tewari A, Sarle R, Hemal
A, Peabody JO et al. Laparoscopic and robot assisted
radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured
program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol
2002;168:945-9.
19. Tewari A, Peabody J, Sarle R, Balakrishnan G, Hemal
A, Shrivastava A et al. Technique of da vinci robot-assisted anatomic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2002:
60:569-72
20. Trinh QD, Sammon J, Sun M, Ravi P, Ghani KR,
Bianchi M et al. Perioperative outcomes of robotassisted radical prostatectomy compared with open
radical prostatectomy: results from the nationwide
inpatient sample. Eur Urol 2012;61:679-85.
21. Sonn GA, Natarajan S, Margolis DJA, MacAiran M,
Lieu P, Huang J et al. Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device. The J Urol
2013;189:86-91.
22. Hricak H, White S, Vigneron D, Kurhanewicz J, Kosco
A, Levin D et al. Carcinoma of the prostate gland: MR
imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal--pelvic phased-array coils. Radiology 1994;193:703-9.
23. Schnall MD, Pollack HM. Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate gland. Urol Radiol 1990: 12:109-14.
24. Kirkham APS, Emberton M, Allen C. How good is
MRI at detecting and characterising cancer within the
prostate? Eur Urol 2006;50:1163-75.
25. Heijmink SW, Ftterer JJ, Hambrock T, Takahashi S,
Scheenen TW, Huisman HJ et al. Prostate Cancer:
Body-Array versus Endorectal Coil MR Imaging at 3
T—Comparison of Image Quality, Localization, and
Staging Performance1. Radiology 2007;244:184-95.
26. Morgan VA, Riches SF, Thomas K, Vanas N, Parker C,
Giles S et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance
imaging for monitoring prostate cancer progression
in patients managed by active surveillance. Br J Radiol 2011;84:31-7.
27. Giannarini G, Petralia G, Thoeny HC. Potential and
limitations of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance
imaging in kidney, prostate, and bladder cancer including pelvic lymph node staging: a critical analysis
of the literature. Eur Urol 2012;61:326-40.
28. Turkbey B, Pinto PA, Mani H, Bernardo M, Pang Y,
McKinney Y et al. ��������������������������������
Prostate Cancer: Value of Multiparametric MR Imaging at 3 T for Detection—Histopathologifc Correlation 1. Radiology 2010;255:8999.
29. Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V, Rastinehad AR, Bernardo
M, Pohida T et al. Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens
processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol 2011;186:1818-24.
30. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P,
Verma S, Villeirs G et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines
2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746-57.
31. Tewari AK, Srivastava A, Huang MW, Robinson BD,
Shevchuk MM, Durand M et al. Anatomical grades
of nerve sparing: a risk stratified approach to neural
MINERVA CHIRURGICA
October 2013
ROBOT ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY IN 2013
hammock sparing during robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). BJU Int 2011;108:984-92.
32. Tewari AK, Rao SR. Anatomical foundations and surgical manoeuvres for precise identification of the
prostatovesical junction during robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2006;98:833-7.
33. Tewari A, El Hakim A, Rao S, Raman JD. Identification of the retrotrigonal layer as a key anatomical
landmark during robotically assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2006;98:829-32.
34. Srivastava A, Grover S, Sooriakumaran P, Tan G, Takenaka A, Tewari AK. Neuroanatomic basis for traction-free preservation of the neural hammock during
athermal robotic radical prostatectomy. Curr Opin
Urol 2011;21:49.
35. Rabbani F, Stapleton AMF, Kattan MW, Wheeler TM,
Scardino PT. Factors predicting recovery of erections
after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2000;164:1929-34.
36. Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Borin J. Impact of cautery versus cautery-free preservation of neurovascular bundles on early return of potency. J Endourol
2006;20:586-9.
37. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, Badani KK, Fumo
M, Bhandari M et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy:
contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur
Urol 2007;51:648-58.
38. Chien GW, Mikhail AA, Orvieto MA, Zagaja GP,
Sokoloff MH, Brendler CB et al. Modified clipless antegrade nerve preservation in robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with validated sexual
function evaluation. Urology 2005;66:419.
39. Tewari A, Takenaka A, Mtui E, Horninger W, Peschel
R, Bartsch G et al. The proximal neurovascular plate
and the tri zonal neural architecture around the
prostate gland: importance in the athermal robotic
technique of nerve sparing prostatectomy. BJU Int
2006;98:314-23.
40. Tewari A, Rao S, Martinez-Salamanca JI, Leung R, Ramanathan R, Mandhani A et al. Cancer control and
the preservation of neurovascular tissue: how to
meet competing goals during robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2008;101:1013-8.
41. Tewari A, Tan G, Dorsey P. Optimizing erectogenic
outcomes during athermal robotic prostatectomy: a
risk-stratified tri-zonal approach. Urol Times Clin Edition 2008;3:s4-12.
42. Tewari AK, Srivastava A, Mudaliar K, Tan GY, Grover
S, El Douaihy Y et al. Anatomical
�����������������������������
retro apical technique of synchronous (posterior and anterior) urethral transection: a novel approach for ameliorating
apical margin positivity during robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2010;106:1364-73.
43. Pagano F, Prayer Galetti T, d’Arrigo L, Altavilla G,
Gardiman M, Zattoni F. Radical surgery for clinically
confined prostate cancer. Ann New York Acad Sci
1996;784:85-92.
44. Tewari AK, Srivastava A, Sooriakumaran P, Slevin A,
Grover S, Waldman O et al. Use
����������������������
of a novel absorbable barbed plastic surgical suture enables a “selfcinching” technique of vesicourethral anastomosis
during robot-assisted prostatectomy and improves
anastomotic times. J Endourol 2010;24:1645-50.
45. Tewari A, Jhaveri J, Rao S, Yadav R, Bartsch G, Te A
et al. Total reconstruction of the vesico urethral junction. BJU Int 2008;101:871-7.
46. Tewari A, Rao S, Mandhani A. Catheter less robotic
radical prostatectomy using a custom made synchronous anastomotic splint and vesical urinary diversion
device: report of the initial series and perioperative
outcomes. BJU Int 2008;102:1000-4.
47. Sanchez-Salas R, Flamand V, Cathelineau X. Prevent-
Vol. 68 - No. 5
ALI
ing Complications in Robotic Prostatic Surgery. Eur
Urol Suppl 2010;9:388-93.
48. Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A,
Graefen M et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotassisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review
and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur
Urol 2009;55:1037-63.
49. Guillonneau B, Gupta R, El Fettouh H, Cathelineau X,
Baumert H, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic management
of rectal injury during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2003;169:1694-6.
50. Yee DS, Ornstein DK. Repair of rectal injury during
robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Urology
2008;72:428-31.
51. Carlsson S, Nilsson AE, Schumacher MC, Jonsson MN,
Volz DS, Steineck G et al. �������������������������
Surgery-related complications in 1253 robot-assisted and 485 open retropubic
radical prostatectomies at the Karolinska University
Hospital, Sweden. Urology 2010;75:1092-7.
52. Crisci A, Young MD, Murphy BC, Paulson DF, Dahm
P. Ureteral reimplantation for inadvertent ureteral injury during radicalperineal prostatectomy. Urology
2003;62:941.
53. Msezane LP, Reynolds WS, Gofrit ON, Shalhav AL,
Zagaja GP, Zorn KC. Bladder neck contracture after
robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy:
evaluation of incidence, risk factors, and impact on
urinary function. J Endourol 2008;22:377-84.
54. Buckley JC. Complications after radical prostatectomy: anastomotic stricture and rectourethral fistula.
Curr Opin Urol 2011;21:461.
55. Sandhu JS, Gotto GT, Herran LA, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, Rabbani F. Age, obesity, medical comorbidities and surgical technique are predictive of symptomatic anastomotic strictures after contemporary
radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2011;185:2148-52.
56. Magera Jr JS, Inman BA, Slezak JM, Bagniewski SM,
Sebo TJ, Myers RP. Increased optical magnification
from 2.5 to 4.3 with technical modification lowers
the positive margin rate in open radical retropubic
prostatectomy. J Urol 2008;179:130-5.
57. Greene KL, Albertsen PC, Babaian RJ, Carter HB,
Gann PH, Han M et al. Prostate specific antigen best
practice statement: 2009 update. J Urol 2009;182:2232.
58. Heidenreich A, Bolla M, Joniau S. EAU guidelines on
prostate cancer, 2011 [Internet]. Available at http://
www uroweb org/gls/pdf/08% 20Prostate% 20Cancer_LR% 20March% 2013th [cited 2013, Mar 20].
59. Masterson TA, Cheng L, Boris RS, Koch MO. Open
vs. robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: A single
surgeon and pathologist comparison of pathologic
and oncologic outcomes. Urol Oncol Seminars 2012
[Epub ahead of print].
60. Magheli A, Gonzalgo ML, Su LM, Guzzo TJ, Netto G,
Humphreys EB et al. Impact of surgical technique
(open vs. laparoscopic vs. robotic assisted) on pathological and biochemical outcomes following radical
prostatectomy: an analysis using propensity score
matching. BJU Int 2011;107:1956-62.
61. Tewari AK, Bigelow K, Rao S, Takenaka A, El-Tabi N,
Te A et al. Anatomic restoration technique of continence mechanism and preservation of puboprostatic
collar: a novel modification to achieve early urinary
continence in men undergoing robotic prostatectomy. Urology 2007;69:726-31.
62. Patel VR, Coelho RF, Palmer KJ, Rocco B. Periurethral
suspension stitch during robot-assisted laparoscopic
radical prostatectomy: description of the technique
and continence outcomes. Eur Urol 2009;56:472-8.
63. Srivastava A, Chopra S, Pham A, Sooriakumaran P,
Durand M, Chughtai B et al. Effect of a risk-stratified
MINERVA CHIRURGICA
511
This document is protected by international copyright laws. No additional reproduction is authorized. It is permitted for personal use to download and save only one file and print only one copy of this Article. It is not permitted to make additional copies
(either sporadically or systematically, either printed or electronic) of the Article for any purpose. It is not permitted to distribute the electronic copy of the article through online internet and/or intranet file sharing systems, electronic mailing or any other
means which may allow access to the Article. The use of all or any part of the Article for any Commercial Use is not permitted. The creation of derivative works from the Article is not permitted. The production of reprints for personal or commercial use is
not permitted. It is not permitted to remove, cover, overlay, obscure, block, or change any copyright notices or terms of use which the Publisher may post on the Article. It is not permitted to frame or use framing techniques to enclose any trademark, logo,
or other proprietary information of the Publisher.
ALI
ROBOT ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY IN 2013
grade of nerve-sparing technique on early return of
continence after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical
prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2013;63:438-44.
64. Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Skarecky D. Rapid communication: early potency outcomes with cautery-free
neurovascular bundle preservation with robotic
laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol
2005;19:715-8.
65. Bolenz C, Gupta A, Hotze T, Ho
����������������������
R, Cadeddu JA, Roe�����������������������������������
comparison of robotic, laparohrborn CG et al. Cost
scopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate
cancer. Eur Urol 2010;57:453.
66. Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Gettman MT. The new economics of radical prostatectomy: cost comparison of
open, laparoscopic and robot assisted techniques. J
Urol 2004;172:1431-5.
67. Stitzenberg KB, Wong YN, Nielsen ME, Egleston BL,
Uzzo RG. Trends in radical prostatectomy: centralization, robotics, and access to urologic cancer care.
Cancer 2012;118:54-62.
68. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, Badani KK, Fumo
M, Bhandari M et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy:
contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur
Urol 2007;51:648-57; discussion 57-8.
69. Krambeck AE, DiMarco DS, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ,
Myers RP, Blute ML et al. Radical prostatectomy for
prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of
open retropubic and robot assisted techniques. BJU
Int 2009;103:448-53.
70. Murphy DG, Kerger M, Crowe H, Peters JS, Costello AJ. Operative details and oncological and functional outcome of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: 400 cases with a minimum of 12
months follow-up. Eur Urol 2009;55:1358-67.
71. Shikanov SA, Zorn KC, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL. Trifecta outcomes after robotic-assisted laparoscopic
prostatectomy. Urology 2009;74:619-23.
72. Carlucci JR, Nabizada-Pace F, Samadi DB. Robotassisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: technique and outcomes of 700 cases. Int J Biomed Sci
2009;5:201-8.
512
73. Patel VR, Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Orvieto MA, Palmer
KJ, Rocco B et al. Continence, potency and oncological outcomes after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: early trifecta results of a high volume surgeon.
BJU Int 2010;106:696-702.
74. Sharma NL, Papadopoulos A, Lee D, McLoughlin J,
Vowler SL, Baumert H et al. First 500 cases of robotic
assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy from a
single UK centre: learning curves of two surgeons.
BJU Int 2011;108:739-47.
75. Xylinas E, Durand X, Ploussard G, Campeggi A,
Allory Y, Vordos D et al. Evaluation of combined
oncologic and functional outcomes after roboticassisted laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: trifecta rate of achieving continence,
potency and cancer control. Urol Oncol 2013;31:99103.
76. Kim SC, Song C, Kim W, Kang T, Park J, Jeong IG
et al. Factors determining functional outcomes after
radical prostatectomy: robot-assisted versus retropubic. Eur Urol 2011;60:413-9.
77. Tewari AK, Ali A, Metgud S, Theckumparampil N,
Srivastava A, Khani F et al. Functional outcomes following robotic prostatectomy using athermal, traction free risk-stratified grades of nerve sparing. World
J Urol 2013;31:471-80.
78. Lavery HJ, Levinson AW, Brajtbord JS, Samadi DB.
Candidacy for active surveillance may be associated
with improved functional outcomes after prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 2013;31:187-92.
Conflicts of interest.—Dr. Ashutosh Tewari discloses that
he is the principal investigator on research grants from Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (Sunnyvale, California, USA) and Boston Scientific Corporation; he is a non-compensated director of Prostate Cancer Institute (Pune, India) and Global
Prostate Cancer Research Foundation; he has received research funding from, The LeFrak Family Foundation, Mr.
and Mrs. Paul Kanavos, Craig Effron & Company, Charles
Evans Foundation and Christian and Heidi Lange Family
Foundation.
MINERVA CHIRURGICA
October 2013