title: Status of radical prostatectomy in 2009: is there medical evidence to justify the robotic approach?
abstract: This article presents the evolution of open radical retropubic prostatectomy (ORRP) into a minimally invasive procedure and reviews the literature to provide a legitimate comparison between ORRP and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy (RALRP). The article is limited to manuscripts cited in the peer-reviewed literature, and an effort was made to identify those articles that fulfilled the highest level of medical evidence. In centers of excellence, ORRP is performed with no mortality, extraordinarily low technical and medical complications (1%), the rare need for blood transfusions, 1- to 2-day hospital stays, urinary catheters that are routinely removed in a week, the majority of men returning to work in 2 weeks, and up to 97% of men regaining urinary continence. Return of potency remains a challenge, especially for older men with marginal erections. RALRP is now the most common approach for the surgical removal of the malignant prostate. A critical review of the literature fails to support the marketing claims that RALRP is associated with shorter hospitalization, less pain, better cosmetics, shorter catheter time, lower transfusion rates, or improved continence and potency rates. The highest level of medical evidence suggests that RALRP may significantly compromise oncologic outcomes and that men undergoing this approach have higher regret rates than men undergoing ORRP.
authors.affiliation: New York University School of Medicine New York, NY.
authors.forename: Herbert
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Lepor
references.citation: Urology. 2001 Sep;58(3):425-9
references.pmid: 11549493
references.citation: Rev Urol. 2001 Summer;3(3):113-9
references.pmid: 16985703
references.citation: Rev Urol. 2008 Fall;10(4):245-53
references.pmid: 19145268
references.citation: J Urol. 2004 Mar;171(3):1212-5
references.pmid: 14767304
references.citation: J Urol. 2005 Sep;174(3):912-4; discussion 914
references.pmid: 16093986
references.citation: Rev Urol. 2005 Summer;7(3):115-27
references.pmid: 16985822
references.citation: J Urol. 1979 Feb;121(2):198-200
references.pmid: 423333
references.citation: J Urol. 2007 Mar;177(3):929-31
references.pmid: 17296378
references.citation: Cancer Invest. 2004;22(3):435-44
references.pmid: 15493364
references.citation: J Urol. 2001 Nov;166(5):1729-33
references.pmid: 11586211
references.citation: Urology. 2003 Jan;61(1):156-60
references.pmid: 12559288
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2008 May 10;26(14):2278-84
references.pmid: 18467718
references.citation: J Urol. 1999 Aug;162(2):433-8
references.pmid: 10411052
references.citation: Urology. 2003 Oct;62(4):702-6
references.pmid: 14550447
references.citation: Urol Clin North Am. 2001 Aug;28(3):639-53
references.pmid: 11590819
references.citation: J Urol. 1991 Mar;145(3):512-4; discussion 514-5
references.pmid: 1997701
references.citation: Urology. 2010 Jun;75(6):1424-8
references.pmid: 20513505
references.citation: J Urol. 1985 Feb;133(2):207-12
references.pmid: 3968733
references.citation: Urology. 2001 Apr;57(4):737-41
references.pmid: 11306393
references.citation: J Urol. 2006 Oct;176(4 Pt 1):1420-3
references.pmid: 16952648
references.citation: Urology. 2001 Apr;57(4):742-6
references.pmid: 11306394
references.citation: Urol Clin North Am. 2001 Aug;28(3):613-27
references.pmid: 11590817
references.citation: J Urol. 2003 Jun;169(6):2147-52
references.pmid: 12771737
references.citation: BJU Int. 2003 Aug;92(3):205-10
references.pmid: 12887468
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2008 Mar 20;358(12):1250-61
references.pmid: 18354103
references.citation: Urol Clin North Am. 2009 May;36(2):237-49, ix
references.pmid: 19406324
references.citation: J Urol. 2009 Apr;181(4):1817-22
references.pmid: 19233413
references.citation: Urology. 2005 Jul;66(1):141-6
references.pmid: 15992906
references.citation: J Urol. 1994 May;151(5):1283-90
references.pmid: 7512659
references.citation: Urol Oncol. 2011 Jul-Aug;29(4):388-92
references.pmid: 19762254
references.citation: J Urol. 2000 Mar;163(3):829-33
references.pmid: 10687987
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2005 Nov 10;23(32):8170-5
references.pmid: 16278469
references.citation: Int J Impot Res. 2008 Sep-Oct;20(5):479-86
references.pmid: 18650827
references.citation: J Urol. 2009 Feb;181(2):462-71
references.pmid: 19084865
references.citation: J Urol. 1994 Nov;152(5 Pt 2):1831-6
references.pmid: 7523730
references.citation: Cancer. 1987 Aug 1;60(3 Suppl):526-37
references.pmid: 3594391
references.citation: BJU Int. 2007 May;99(5):1103-8
references.pmid: 17309550
references.citation: J Urol. 2008 Dec;180(6):2459-62
references.pmid: 18930492
references.citation: J Urol. 2001 Jun;165(6 Pt 1):1943-8; discussion 1948-9
references.pmid: 11371886
references.citation: J Urol. 2001 Aug;166(2):416-9
references.pmid: 11458039
references.citation: J Urol. 1982 Apr;127(4):704-6
references.pmid: 7069835
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2008 Oct;54(4):785-93
references.pmid: 18585849
references.citation: BJU Int. 2006 Feb;97(2):255-8
references.pmid: 16430623
references.citation: J Urol. 1982 Sep;128(3):492-7
references.pmid: 7120554
references.citation: JAMA. 1997 May 14;277(18):1452-5
references.pmid: 9145717