Prostatectomy for benign prostate disease: open, laparoscopic and robotic techniques.
BACKGROUND
Prostatectomy for benign disease, also known as a 'simple prostatectomy', is neither simple in indication nor approach. In the post-Medical Therapy of Prostatic Symptoms (MTOPS), NCT00021814 trial era, the medical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and consequent bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) has shifted surgical intervention to those patients who are medical-non responders, present with advanced signs of BOO and obstructive uropathy, and those with prostate gland volumes beyond the size normally approachable with standard transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Simple prostatectomy through an open surgical approach is associated with improvements in BOO and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) but at the expense of considerable surgical and perioperative morbidity. Advances in technology have made it possible for patients to be offered standard open surgical approaches as well as transurethral approaches with photon-based energy sources (i.e. laser prostatectomy) and laparoscopic simple prostatectomy. A review of the historical challenges of BPH and the standard-of-care of open prostatectomy will put into perspective the potential advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic and robotic prostatectomy for the treatment of benign BOO due to BPH.


METHODS
A careful review of the literature was performed utilizing PubMed and ClinicalKey searches to identify relevant articles. Search terms 'simple prostatectomy', 'robotic simple prostatectomy' and 'laparoscopic simple prostatectomy'.


RESULTS
Over 14 series of open simple prostatectomies and over 20 minimally invasive series were identified and used as a reference. Additionally, several review articles were identified and incorporated.


CONCLUSIONS
Simple prostatectomy may be performed safely in appropriately selected patients utilizing either open or minimally invasive approaches. Clinical criteria should be used to determine the appropriateness of either retropubic versus transvesical approach.
Department of Urology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York USA.
Mark
M
Ferretti
John
J
Phillips
D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D007813:Laparotomy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D007902:Length of Stay; D008297:Male; D019060:Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods; D061646:Operative Time; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000401:mortality / Q000503:physiopathology; D011468:Prostatectomy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D011470:Prostatic Hyperplasia / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000401:mortality / Q000601:surgery*; D012086:Reoperation / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D018570:Risk Assessment; D065287:Robotic Surgical Procedures / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D015996:Survival Rate; D016896:Treatment Outcome