COMPARISON OF ROBOTIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY VS LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY ON PROSTATE CANCER PATIENT: A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/9vwe2n13Keywords:
Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, Oncological outcomeAbstract
Background: Prostate cancer constitutes 3.8% of all cancer-related deaths in men. Radical prostatectomy stands as a standard surgical treatment for prostate cancer. Robot-assisted systems have emerged aiming to simplify the intricacies of complex laparoscopic procedures. Specifically, robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) has been proposed as a means to expedite the learning curve, potentially leading to quicker reductions in operative time compared to traditional laparoscopic techniques (LRP). This study aims to serve a comprehensive systematic review to compare laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) on prostate cancer based on literatures of the last 10 years.
Methods: The review adhered to PRISMA 2020 standards and analyzed full-text English literature from 2014 to 2024. It excluded editorials, review papers from the same journal, and submissions lacking a DOI. Literature sources included PubMed, SagePub, SpringerLink, and Google Scholar.
Result: A total of 655 articles were retrieved from online databases (PubMed, SagePub, SpringerLink and Google Scholar). After three rounds of screening, five articles directly relevant to the systematic review were selected for full-text reading and analysis.
Conclusion: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) offers advantages such as quicker recovery and comparable safety to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). Studies show better urinary continence and potency outcomes with RARP. While PSM rates vary between RARP and LRP, further research is needed to understand their impact on recurrence. Despite challenges like the lack of tactile sensation in RARP, it remains a popular choice for prostate cancer treatment.
References
Rawla P. Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer. World J Oncol. 2019 Apr;10(2):63–89.
Descotes JL. Diagnosis of prostate cancer. Asian Journal of Urology. 2019 Apr 1;6(2):129–36.
Litwin MS, Tan HJ. The Diagnosis and Treatment of Prostate Cancer: A Review. JAMA. 2017 Jun 27;317(24):2532–42.
Allan C, Ilic D. Laparoscopic versus Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for the Treatment of Localised Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. Urologia Internationalis. 2015 Jul 18;96(4):373–8.
Basiri A, de la Rosette JJ, Tabatabaei S, Woo HH, Laguna MP, Shemshaki H. Comparison of retropubic, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: who is the winner? World J Urol. 2018 Apr 1;36(4):609–21.
Carbonara U, Srinath M, Crocerossa F, Ferro M, Cantiello F, Lucarelli G, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy versus standard laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: an evidence-based analysis of comparative outcomes. World J Urol. 2021 Oct 1;39(10):3721–32.
Porpiglia F, Fiori C, Bertolo R, Manfredi M, Mele F, Checcucci E, et al. Five-year Outcomes for a Prospective Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Laparoscopic and Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy. European Urology Focus. 2018 Jan 1;4(1):80–6.
Okegawa T, Omura S, Samejima M, Ninomiya N, Taguchi S, Nakamura Y, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: comparison of oncological outcomes at a single center. Prostate International. 2020 Mar 1;8(1):16–21.
Stolzenburg JU, Holze S, Arthanareeswaran VKA, Neuhaus P, Do HM, Haney CM, et al. Robotic-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: 12-month Outcomes of the Multicentre Randomised Controlled LAP-01 Trial. European Urology Focus. 2022 Nov 1;8(6):1583–90.
Lee D, Choi SK, Park J, Shim M, Kim A, Lee S, et al. Comparative analysis of oncologic outcomes for open vs. robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer. Korean J Urol. 2015 Aug;56(8):572–9.
Tozawa K, Yasui T, Umemoto Y, Mizuno K, Okada A, Kawai N, et al. Pitfalls of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A comparison of positive surgical margins between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. International Journal of Urology. 2014;21(10):976–9.
Alemozaffar M, Sanda M, Yecies D, Mucci LA, Stampfer MJ, Kenfield SA. Benchmarks for Operative Outcomes of Robotic and Open Radical Prostatectomy: Results from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. European Urology. 2015 Mar 1;67(3):432–8.
Ploussard G, de la Taille A, Moulin M, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Abbou CC, et al. Comparisons of the Perioperative, Functional, and Oncologic Outcomes After Robot-Assisted Versus Pure Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy. European Urology. 2014 Mar 1;65(3):610–9.
Yossepowitch O, Briganti A, Eastham JA, Epstein J, Graefen M, Montironi R, et al. Positive Surgical Margins After Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Contemporary Update. European Urology. 2014 Feb 1;65(2):303–13.
Huang HW, Yan LM, Yang YL, He X, Sun XM, Wang YM, et al. Bi-frontal pneumocephalus is an independent risk factor for early postoperative agitation in adult patients admitted to intensive care unit after elective craniotomy for brain tumor: A prospective cohort study. PLOS ONE. 2018 Jul 19;13(7):e0201064.
Sood A, Jeong W, Peabody JO, Hemal AK, Menon M. Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Inching Toward Gold Standard. Urologic Clinics of North America. 2014 Nov 1;41(4):473–84.
Chennamsetty A, Hafron J, Edwards L, Pew S, Poushanchi B, Hollander J, et al. Predictors of Incisional Hernia after Robotic Assisted Radical Prostatectomy. Adv Urol. 2015;2015:457305.
Papachristos A, Basto M, te Marvelde L, Moon D. Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: an Australian single-surgeon series. ANZ Journal of Surgery. 2015;85(3):154–8.
Mistretta FA, Grasso AA, Buffi N, Cozzi G, De Lorenzis E, Fiori C, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: recent advances. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2015 Sep;67(3):281–92.
Song J, Eswara J, Brandes SB. Postprostatectomy Anastomosis Stenosis: A Systematic Review. Urology. 2015 Aug;86(2):211–8.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Licensing
Ninety Nine Publication publishes articles under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This licensing allows for any use of the work, provided the original author(s) and source are credited, thereby facilitating the free exchange and use of research for the advancement of knowledge.
Detailed Licensing Terms
Attribution (BY): Users must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. Users may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses them or their use.
No Additional Restrictions: Users may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
