Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies

2006; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 175; Issue: 6 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/s0022-5347(06)00265-5

1527-3792

Rebecca Tooher, Peter Swindle, Henry H. Woo, John W. Miller, Guy J. Maddern,

Urologic and reproductive health conditions

No AccessJournal of UrologyReview article1 Jun 2006Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies Rebecca Tooher, Peter Swindle, Henry Woo, John Miller, and Guy Maddern Rebecca TooherRebecca Tooher Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures-Surgical, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Adelaide , Peter SwindlePeter Swindle Mater Medical Research Institute, Mater Prostate Cancer Research Centre, South Brisbane, Queensland , Henry WooHenry Woo Department of Surgery, University of Sydney and Department of Urology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia , John MillerJohn Miller Department of Surgery, University of Adelaide, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville, South Australia , and Guy MaddernGuy Maddern Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures-Surgical, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Adelaide Department of Surgery, University of Adelaide, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville, South Australia View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00265-5AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We compared the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy through a systematic assessment of the literature. Materials and Methods: Literature databases were searched from 1996 to December 2004 inclusive. Studies comparing transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, extraperitoneal endoscopic radical prostatectomy or robot assisted radical prostatectomy with open radical retropubic prostatectomy or radical perineal prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer were included. Comparisons between different laparoscopic approaches were also included. Results: We identified 30 comparative studies, of which none were randomized controlled trials. There were 21 studies comparing laparoscopic with open prostatectomy with a total of 2,301 and 1,757 patients, respectively, and 9 comparing different laparoscopic approaches with a total of 1,148 patients. In terms of safety there did not appear to be any important differences in the complication rate between laparoscopic and open approaches. However, blood loss and transfusions were lower for laparoscopic approaches. In terms of efficacy operative time was longer for laparoscopic than for open prostatectomy but length of stay and duration of catheterization were shorter. Positive margin rates and recurrence-free survival were similar. Continence and potency were not well reported but they appeared similar for the 2 approaches. There were no important differences between laparoscopic approaches. Conclusions: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is emerging as an alternative to open radical prostatectomy but randomized, controlled trials considering patient relevant outcomes, such as survival, continence and potency, with sufficient followup are required to determine relative safety and efficacy. References 1 Cancer in Australia 2000. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare2000. Google Scholar 2 : Prostate cancer diagnosis, staging and survival. Cancer Metastasis Rev2002; 21: 17. Google Scholar 3 : Clinical and cost-effectiveness of new and emerging technologies for early localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess2003; 7: 1. Google Scholar 4 : Localized prostate cancer: overview of surgical management. Urology1997; 49: 35. suppl.. Google Scholar 5 : Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: current status. BJU Int2004; 94: 7. Google Scholar 6 : Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: part I. BJU Int2004; 94: 238. Google Scholar 7 : Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: part II. BJU Int2004; 94: 244. Google Scholar 8 : Effect of age and surgical approach on complications and short-term mortality after radical prostatectomy—a population-based study. Urology1999; 54: 301. Google Scholar 9 : Potency, continence and complication rates in 1,870 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol1999; 162: 433. Link, Google Scholar 10 : Surgery for prostate cancer: rationale, technique and outcomes. Cancer Metastasis Rev2002; 21: 29. Google Scholar 11 : Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique: an analysis of the first 180 cases. J Urol2001; 166: 2101. Link, Google Scholar 12 : Technique of laparoscopic (endoscopic) radical prostatectomy. BJU Int2003; 91: 749. Google Scholar 13 : Making ends meet: a cost comparison of laparoscopic and open radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol2004; 172: 269. Link, Google Scholar 14 How to Use the Evidence. Canberra, Australia: National Health and Medical Research Council2000: 8. Google Scholar 15 : Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook 4.2. Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd2004. chapt. 6. Google Scholar 16 : Prospective comparison of short-term convalescence: laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology2003; 61: 612. Google Scholar 17 : Comparison of quality of life following laparoscopic and open prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol2003; 169: 2045. Link, Google Scholar 18 : Comparison of carcinological results between laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int2004; 94: 222. Google Scholar 19 : Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological evaluation in the early phase of the learning curve comparing to retropubic approach. Arch Ital Urol Androl2004; 76: 1. Google Scholar 20 : Perioperative morbidity of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared with open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urol Oncol2004; 22: 102. Google Scholar 21 : Location of positive surgical margins after retropubic, perineal, and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for organ-confined prostate cancer. Urology2003; 61: 386. Google Scholar 22 : Postoperative analgesia and recovery after open and laparoscopic prostatectomy. Anesth Analg2004; 99: 1878. Google Scholar 23 : Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. AORN J2002; 75: 762. Google Scholar 24 : Delayed recovery of urinary continence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol2003; 10: 207. Google Scholar 25 : Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: preliminary pathologic evaluation. Urology2002; 60: 661. Google Scholar 26 : Laparoscopic prostate surgery suggested. JAMA2001; 286: 2224. Google Scholar 27 : Recovery of quality of life following laparoscopic or open radical prostatectomy. BJU Int2004; 94: 104. suppl.. Google Scholar 28 : Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. J Urol2003; 169: 1689. Link, Google Scholar 29 : Open vs laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a retrospective comparative study at Nagoya. BJU Int2004; 94: 52. suppl.. Google Scholar 30 : Radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of oncological and functional results between open and laparoscopic approaches. World J Urol2003; 20: 360. Google Scholar 31 : Is laparoscopic radical prostatectomy better than traditional retropubic radical prostatectomy? An analysis of peri-operative morbidity in two contemporary series in Italy. Eur Urol2003; 44: 401. Google Scholar 32 : Telerobotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy vs. open retropubic radical prostatectomy—a single center matched-pair controlled study. J Urol2002; 167: 343. abstract 1360. Google Scholar 33 : Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: our experience at 1 year. BJU Int2004; 94: 219. Google Scholar 34 : Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy: assessment of perioperative pain. J Urol2004; 171: 44. abstract 165. Link, Google Scholar 35 : Members of the VIP Team: A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int2003; 92: 205. Google Scholar 36 : Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon's outcomes. Urology2004; 63: 819. Google Scholar 37 : Comparison of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using match-pair analysis. Eur Urol2004; 46: 312. Google Scholar 38 : Transperitoneal or extraperitoneal approach for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a false debate over a real challenge. J Urol2004; 171: 714. Link, Google Scholar 39 : Transperitoneal or extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does the approach matter?. J Urol2004; 172: 2218. Link, Google Scholar 40 : Overcoming the steep learning curve of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: single-surgeon experience. J Endourol2004; 18: 567. Google Scholar 41 : Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: its progression and optimization. BJU Int2004; 94: 52. Google Scholar 42 : Comparison of early oncologic results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach. Eur Urol2004; 46: 50. Google Scholar 43 : Complete solo laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial experience. Urology2003; 61: 724. Google Scholar 44 : Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol2002; 168: 945. Link, Google Scholar 45 : Oncology rather than laparoscopy surgical experience is more important in learning to perform a robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol2004; 171: 215. abstract 813. Link, Google Scholar 46 : The new economics of radical prostatectomy: cost comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot assisted techniques. J Urol2004; 172: 1431. Link, Google Scholar 47 : Cost comparison between robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (Vattikuti Institute Prostatectomy) and radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol2004; 171: 43. abstract 164. Link, Google Scholar © 2006 by American Urological AssociationFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byUchida T, Tomonaga T, Kim H, Nakano M, Shoji S, Nagata Y and Terachi T (2018) Improved Outcomes with Advancements in High Intensity Focused Ultrasound Devices for the Treatment of Localized Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 193, NO. 1, (103-110), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2015. Volume 175 Issue 6 June 2006 Page: 2011-2017 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2006 by American Urological AssociationKeywordsprostatelaparoscopyprostatectomyprostatic neoplasmsendoscopyMetrics Author Information Rebecca Tooher Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures-Surgical, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Adelaide More articles by this author Peter Swindle Mater Medical Research Institute, Mater Prostate Cancer Research Centre, South Brisbane, Queensland More articles by this author Henry Woo Department of Surgery, University of Sydney and Department of Urology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Financial interest and/or other relationship with American Medical systems, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Aventis. More articles by this author John Miller Department of Surgery, University of Adelaide, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville, South Australia More articles by this author Guy Maddern Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures-Surgical, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Adelaide Department of Surgery, University of Adelaide, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville, South Australia More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...