Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy

Mitchell R Humphreys, Matthew T. Gettman, George K. Chow, Horst Zincke, Michael L. Blute

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The development of advanced laparoscopic techniques and robot-assisted technology has resulted in several new surgical approaches for treating organ-confined prostate cancer. Outcomes with these new or minimally invasive techniques should be assessed carefully to ensure that they are similar to or surpass patients' oncologic and functional outcomes after open radical prostatectomy. This article reviews the current published experience with minimally invasive approaches to increase awareness about viability. Several of the larger series of patients who have undergone laparoscopic (transperitoneal and extraperitoneal) or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies are discussed and evaluated critically. Comparisons to published data on open radical prostatectomy are included for completeness. The different minimally invasive techniques are described and contrasted in regard to prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival, surgical margin status, blood loss, transfusion rates, postoperative pain, length of hospitalization, duration of urinary catheterization, potency, continence, and complications. The relative costs of each method are provided. The coexistence of multiple surgical approaches should and can challenge surgeons who perform open and minimally invasive procedures to strive for a new standard of care above and beyond what is accepted today to minimize patient morbidity while maximizing functional and oncologic outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1169-1180
Number of pages12
JournalMayo Clinic Proceedings
Volume79
Issue number9
StatePublished - 2004

Fingerprint

Prostatectomy
Urinary Catheterization
Standard of Care
Prostate-Specific Antigen
Postoperative Pain
Blood Transfusion
Disease-Free Survival
Prostatic Neoplasms
Hospitalization
Technology
Morbidity
Costs and Cost Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Humphreys, M. R., Gettman, M. T., Chow, G. K., Zincke, H., & Blute, M. L. (2004). Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 79(9), 1169-1180.

Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. / Humphreys, Mitchell R; Gettman, Matthew T.; Chow, George K.; Zincke, Horst; Blute, Michael L.

In: Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Vol. 79, No. 9, 2004, p. 1169-1180.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Humphreys, MR, Gettman, MT, Chow, GK, Zincke, H & Blute, ML 2004, 'Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy', Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol. 79, no. 9, pp. 1169-1180.
Humphreys MR, Gettman MT, Chow GK, Zincke H, Blute ML. Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2004;79(9):1169-1180.
Humphreys, Mitchell R ; Gettman, Matthew T. ; Chow, George K. ; Zincke, Horst ; Blute, Michael L. / Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. In: Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2004 ; Vol. 79, No. 9. pp. 1169-1180.
@article{e05d20fc45564217b1e82532378b5f8d,
title = "Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy",
abstract = "The development of advanced laparoscopic techniques and robot-assisted technology has resulted in several new surgical approaches for treating organ-confined prostate cancer. Outcomes with these new or minimally invasive techniques should be assessed carefully to ensure that they are similar to or surpass patients' oncologic and functional outcomes after open radical prostatectomy. This article reviews the current published experience with minimally invasive approaches to increase awareness about viability. Several of the larger series of patients who have undergone laparoscopic (transperitoneal and extraperitoneal) or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies are discussed and evaluated critically. Comparisons to published data on open radical prostatectomy are included for completeness. The different minimally invasive techniques are described and contrasted in regard to prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival, surgical margin status, blood loss, transfusion rates, postoperative pain, length of hospitalization, duration of urinary catheterization, potency, continence, and complications. The relative costs of each method are provided. The coexistence of multiple surgical approaches should and can challenge surgeons who perform open and minimally invasive procedures to strive for a new standard of care above and beyond what is accepted today to minimize patient morbidity while maximizing functional and oncologic outcomes.",
author = "Humphreys, {Mitchell R} and Gettman, {Matthew T.} and Chow, {George K.} and Horst Zincke and Blute, {Michael L.}",
year = "2004",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "79",
pages = "1169--1180",
journal = "Mayo Clinic Proceedings",
issn = "0025-6196",
publisher = "Elsevier Science",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy

AU - Humphreys, Mitchell R

AU - Gettman, Matthew T.

AU - Chow, George K.

AU - Zincke, Horst

AU - Blute, Michael L.

PY - 2004

Y1 - 2004

N2 - The development of advanced laparoscopic techniques and robot-assisted technology has resulted in several new surgical approaches for treating organ-confined prostate cancer. Outcomes with these new or minimally invasive techniques should be assessed carefully to ensure that they are similar to or surpass patients' oncologic and functional outcomes after open radical prostatectomy. This article reviews the current published experience with minimally invasive approaches to increase awareness about viability. Several of the larger series of patients who have undergone laparoscopic (transperitoneal and extraperitoneal) or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies are discussed and evaluated critically. Comparisons to published data on open radical prostatectomy are included for completeness. The different minimally invasive techniques are described and contrasted in regard to prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival, surgical margin status, blood loss, transfusion rates, postoperative pain, length of hospitalization, duration of urinary catheterization, potency, continence, and complications. The relative costs of each method are provided. The coexistence of multiple surgical approaches should and can challenge surgeons who perform open and minimally invasive procedures to strive for a new standard of care above and beyond what is accepted today to minimize patient morbidity while maximizing functional and oncologic outcomes.

AB - The development of advanced laparoscopic techniques and robot-assisted technology has resulted in several new surgical approaches for treating organ-confined prostate cancer. Outcomes with these new or minimally invasive techniques should be assessed carefully to ensure that they are similar to or surpass patients' oncologic and functional outcomes after open radical prostatectomy. This article reviews the current published experience with minimally invasive approaches to increase awareness about viability. Several of the larger series of patients who have undergone laparoscopic (transperitoneal and extraperitoneal) or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies are discussed and evaluated critically. Comparisons to published data on open radical prostatectomy are included for completeness. The different minimally invasive techniques are described and contrasted in regard to prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival, surgical margin status, blood loss, transfusion rates, postoperative pain, length of hospitalization, duration of urinary catheterization, potency, continence, and complications. The relative costs of each method are provided. The coexistence of multiple surgical approaches should and can challenge surgeons who perform open and minimally invasive procedures to strive for a new standard of care above and beyond what is accepted today to minimize patient morbidity while maximizing functional and oncologic outcomes.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=4344683598&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=4344683598&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 15357040

AN - SCOPUS:4344683598

VL - 79

SP - 1169

EP - 1180

JO - Mayo Clinic Proceedings

JF - Mayo Clinic Proceedings

SN - 0025-6196

IS - 9

ER -