Objective: Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE) and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) are minimally invasive surgical techniques to treat localized prostate cancer. We report the outcome and complications of these two techniques conducted by one individual surgeon. Patients and Methods: 86 patients underwent EERPE between January 2008 and June 2011, and 100 patients underwent RALP between August 2011 and October 2012. All surgeries were performed by one single surgeon. Results: The patients of the EERPE and RALP groups had similar clinical characteristics in PSA, prostate volume and D'Amico classification, and were significantly different in their age and BMI as well as in the number of prior surgeries. RALP surgeries were significantly slower (183 vs. 157 min) but also involved lower blood loss (147 vs. 245 ml). Pathological stages and positive surgical margins were similar in both groups. Complications were assessed by the Clavien-Dindo classification. 6 patients in the EERPE group and 3 patients of the RALP group suffered major complications (IIIb-IV). Conclusion: Altogether our results indicate that the learning curve for RALP was short after experience with EERPE. We hypothesize that this is more a result of the surgical experience of the surgeon with the EERPE than on the robotic technique.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, Prostatectomy, Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy, Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy
1.
Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology 1997;50:854-857.
2.
Guillonneau B, Vallencien G: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris experience. J Urol 2000;163:418-422.
3.
Rassweiler J, Sentker L, Seemann O, Hatzinger M, Rumpelt HJ: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique: an analysis of the first 180 cases. J Urol 2001;166:2101-2108.
4.
Anastasiadis AG, Salomon L, Katz R, Hoznek A, Chopin D, Abbou C: Radical retropubic versus laparoscopic prostatectomy a prospective comparison of functional outcome. Urology 2003;62:292-297.
5.
Türk I, Deger IS, Winkelmann B, Roigas J, Schönberger B, Loening SA: Die laparoskopische radikale Prostatektomie. Erfahrungen mit 145 Eingriffen. Urologe A 2001;40:199-206.
6.
Stolzenburg JU, Do M, Rabenalt R, et al: Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: initial experience after 70 procedures. J Urol 2003;169:2066-2071.
7.
Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, Do M, et al: Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: oncological and functional results after 700 procedures. J Urol 2005;174:1271-1275.
8.
Binder J, Kramer W: Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2001;87:408-410.
9.
Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M; Members of the VIP Team: A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int 2003;92:205-210.
10.
Patel VR, Tully AS, Holmes R, Lindsay J: Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting - the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol 2005;174:269-272.
11.
Van Appledorn S, Bouchier-Haeys D, Agarwal D, Costello AJ: Robotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: setup and procedural techniques after 150 cases. Urology 2006;67:364-367.
12.
Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Lee D, Clayman RV: Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2003;170:1738-1741.
13.
Stolzenburg JU, Truss MC, Rabenalt R, et al: Die endoskopische extraperitoneale radikale Prostatektomie (EERPE). Ergebnisse nach 300 Eingriffen. Urologe A 2004;43:698-707.
14.
Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, et al: Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol 2007;51:648-658.
15.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA: Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205-213.
16.
Rocco B, Matei DV, Melegari S, et al: Robotic vs. open prostatectomy in a laparoscopically naïve centre: a matched pair analysis. BJU Int 2009;104:991-995.
17.
Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, Do M, et al: Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: the University of Leipzig experience of 1300 cases. World J Urol 2007;25:45-51.
18.
Patel VR, Thaly R, Shah K: Robotic radical prostatectomy: outcomes of 500 cases. BJU Int 2007;99:1109-1112.
19.
Padavano J, Schaffer L, Fannin E, et al: Robotic radical prostatectomy at a teaching community hospital: outcomes and safety. JSLS 2011;15:193-199.
20.
Coelho RF, Rocco B, Patel MB, et al: Retropubic, laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a critical review of outcomes reported by high-volume centers. J Endourol 2010;24:2003-2015.
21.
Hu JC, Nelson RA, Wilson TG, et al: Perioperative complications of laparoscopic and robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2006;175:541-546.
22.
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;55:1358-1367.
23.
Bhandari A, McIntire L, Kaul SA, Hemal AK; Peabody JO, Menon M: Perioperative complications of robotic radical prostatectomy after the learning curve. J Urol 2005;174:915-918.
24.
Doumerc N, Yuen C, Savdie R, et al: Should experienced open prostatic surgeons convert to robotic surgery? The real learning curve for one surgeon over 3 years. BJU Int 2010;106:378-384.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.