Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
World Journal of Urology
Published in: World Journal of Urology 4/2020

01-04-2020 | Prostate Cancer | Topic Paper

The evolution and resurgence of perineal prostatectomy in the robotic surgical era

Authors: Juan Garisto, Riccardo Bertolo, Clark A. Wilson, Jihad Kaouk

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 4/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To review the recent advances in terms of surgical technique and new robotic platforms applied to radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP).

Methods

A literature review was performed focusing on original articles on perineal prostatectomy searching via Medline/Pubmed and Embase. The entire spectrum was covered such as development of surgical technique including pelvic lymphadenectomy, adoption of novel surgical platforms, learning curve and future directions.

Results

Surgical removal of the prostate plays a significant role on the treatment of localized prostate cancer (PCa). RPP was the first surgical approach described for radical prostatectomy. This technique declined in popularity secondary to the development of the retropubic approach. Recently, the appearance of novel robotic technology has generated renewed interest in the perineal approach.

Conclusion

There has been a recent resurgence on the interest of radical perineal prostatectomy for the treatment of localized PCa driven by the advent of new robotic surgical technologies into the field. Future studies are needed to better determine the learning curve of the perineal approach and its current role in the treatment of prostate cancer.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A (2018) CA Cancer J Clin 68(6):394–424PubMed
2.
Wallis CJD, Saskir R, Choo R et al (2016) Surgery versus radiotherapy for clinically-localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 70(1):21–30PubMed
3.
Sanda MG, CAdeddu JA, Kirkby E et al (2018) Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part I: risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options. J Urol 199(3):684–690
4.
Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71(4):618–629PubMed
5.
Young HH (1945) The cure of cancer of the prostate by radical perineal prostatectomy (prostate-seminal vesiculectomy): history, literature and statistics of Young’s operation. J Urol 53:188–256
6.
Walsh PC, Lepor H, Eggleston JD (1983) Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations. Prostate 4:473PubMed
7.
Gouley JWS (1885) Some points in the surgery of the hypertrophied prostate. Trans Meet Am Surg Assoc 3:163–192
8.
Billroth T. Carcinoma der prostate. Chir Erfahrungen, Zurich 1860-67. Langenbecks Arch Klin Chir Ver Dtsch Z Chir 1869; Bd X, S:548
9.
Young HH (1940) A surgeon’s autobiography. Harcourt, Brace and Co, New York, pp 104–134
10.
Young HH (1905) Conservative perineal prostatectomy: the results of two years experience and report of seventy-five cases. Ann Surg 41(4):549–557PubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Belt E (1942) Radical perineal prostatectomy in early carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 78:28
12.
Millin T (1958) The surgery of the malignant prostate. Br J Urol 30:407–410PubMed
13.
Reiner WB, Walsh PC (1987) An anatomical approach to the surgical management of the dorsal vein and Santorini’s plexus during radical retropubic prostatectomy: the apical dissection. J Urol 138(3):543–550
14.
Weldon VE, Tavel FR (1988) Potency sparing radical perineal prostatectomy: anatomy, surgical technique and initial results. J Urol 140:559–562PubMed
15.
Saito S, Murakami G (2003) Radical perineal prostatectomy: a novel approach for lymphadenectomy from perineal incision. J Urol 170:1298–1300PubMed
16.
Abbou CC, Hoznek A, Salomon L et al (2000) Remote laparoscopic radical prostatectomy carried out with a robot. Report of a case. Prog Urol 10:520–523PubMed
17.
Binder J, Kramer W (2001) Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 87:408–410PubMed
18.
Lowrance WT, Eastham JA, Savage C et al (2012) Contemporary open and robotic radical prostatectomy practice patterns among urologist in the United States. J Urol 187:2087–2092PubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Resnick MI (2003) Radical perineal prostatectomy. BJU 92(6):522–523
20.
Janoff DM, Parra RO (2005) Contemporary appraisal of radical perineal prostatectomy. J Urol 173:1863–1870PubMed
21.
Laydner H, Akca O, Autorino R, Eyraud R, Zargar H, Brandao LF, Khalifeh A, Panumatrassamee K, Long JA, Isac W, Stein RJ, Kaouk JH (2014) J Endourol 28(12):1479–1486PubMed
22.
Kaouk JH, Akca O, Zargar H, Caputo P, Ramirez D, Andrade H, Albayrak S, Laydner H, Angermeir K (2016) Descriptive technique and initial results for robotic radical perineal prostatectomy. Urology 94:129–138PubMed
23.
Akca O, Zargar H, Kaouk JH (2015) Robotic surgery revives radical perineal prostatectomy. Eur Urol 68(2):340–341PubMed
24.
Tugku, Akca O, Simsek A et al (2017) Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: first experience of 15 cases. Turk J Urol 43(4):476–483
25.
26.
Ramirez D, Maurice MJ, Kaouk JH (2016) Robotic perineal radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection using a purpose-built single-port robotic platform. BJU Int 118(5):829–833PubMed
27.
Bertolo R, Garisto J, Gettman M, Kaouk J (2018) Novel system for robot single-port surgery: feasibility and state of the art in urology. Eur Urol Focus. 4(5):669–673PubMed
28.
Kaouk J, Garisto J, Bertolo R (2019) Robotic urologic surgical interventions performed with the single port dedicated platform: first clinical investigation. Eur Urol 123(4):733–739
29.
Gillitzer R, Thuroff JW (2002) Relatavie advantages and disadvantages of radical perineal prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 43(2):167–190PubMed
30.
Sullivan LD, Weir MJ, Kinahan JF, Taylor DL (2000) A comparison of the relative merits of radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int 85(1):95–100PubMed
31.
Gillitzer R, Thomas C, Wiesner C, Jones J et al (2010) Single Center comparison of anastomotic strictures after radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 76(2):417–422PubMed
32.
Matsubara A, Yoneta T, Nakamoto T et al (2007) Inguinal Hernia after radical perineal prostatectomy: comparison with the retropubic approach. Urology 70(6):1152–1156PubMed
33.
Frazier HA, Robertson JE, Paulson DF (1992) Radical prostatectomy: the pros and cons of the perineal versus retropubic approach. J Urol 147:888–890PubMed
34.
Haab F, Boocon-Gibod L, Delmas V, Toublanc M (1994) Perineal versus retropubic radical prostatectomy for T1, T2 prostate cancer. Br J Urol 74:626–629PubMed
35.
Zippe CD, Rackley RR (1996) Non-nerve sparing radical prostatectomy in the elderly patient: perineal vs retropubic approach. J Urol 155(Suppl):284
36.
Lassen PM, Kearse WS (1995) Rectal injuries during radical perineal prostatectomy. Urology 45:266–269PubMed
37.
Bishoff JT, Motley G, Optenberg SA et al (1998) Incidence of fecal and urinary incontinence following radical perineal and retropubic prostatectomy in a national population. J Urol 160(2):454–458PubMed
38.
Briganti A, Blute ML, Eastham JH et al (2009) Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 55:1251–1265PubMed
39.
Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM et al (2001) Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin Tables) for new millennium. Urology 58:843–848PubMed
40.
Keller H, Lehmann J, Beier J (2007) Radical perineal prostatectomy and simultaneous extended pelvic lymph node dissection via the same incision. Eur Urol 52:384–388PubMed
41.
Matsubara A, Murakami G, Arakawa T et al (2003) Topographic anatomy of the male perineal structures with special reference to perineal approaches for radical prostatectomy. Int Urol 10:141–148
42.
43.
Wiltz AL, Shikanov S, Eggener SE et al (2009) Robotic radical prostatectomy in overweight and obese patients: oncological and validated-functional outcomes. Urology 73:316–322PubMed
44.
45.
Harris MJ (2007) The anatomic perineal prostatectomy: an outcomes-based evolution. Eur Urol 52:81–88PubMed
46.
Sullivan LD, Weir MJ et al (2000) A comparison of the relative merits of radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int 85:95–100PubMed
47.
Comploj E, Palermo S, Trenti E et al (2001) Radical perineal prostatectomy: an outdated procedure? Int J Surg 9:400–403
48.
Vickers A, Bianco F, Serio AM (2007) The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 99(15):1171–1177PubMed
49.
Mokulis J, Thompson I (1997) Radical Prostatectomy: is the perineal approach more difficult to learn? J Urol 157(1):230–232PubMed
50.
Eliya F, Kernen K, Gonzalez J, Peters K et al (2011) Radical perineal prostatectomy: a learning curve? Int Urol Nephrol 43(1):139–142PubMed
51.
Wronski S, Slupski P, Wisniewski P (2012) A Single institution study on patient’s self-reporting appraisal and functional outcomes of the first set of men following radical perineal prostatectomy. Cent Eur J Urol 65(3):124–129
52.
Kaouk J, Garisto J, Etlemamy M, Bertolo R (2019) Pure-single site robot-assisted partial nephrectomy using the sp surgical system: initial clinical experience. Urology 124:282–285PubMed
53.
Kaouk J, Bertolo R, Eltemamy M, Garisto J (2019) Single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: first clinical experience using the sp surgical system. Urology 124:309PubMed
54.
55.
Kaouk J, Garisto J, Eltemamy M, Bertolo R (2019) Single-port robotic intracorporeal ileal conduit urinary diversion during radical cystectomy using the SP surgical system: step-by-step tecnique. Urology 130:196–200PubMed
56.
Bertolo R, Garisto J, Eltemamy M, Kaouk J (2019) Pure single-site transperineal robotic radical prostatectomy: first clinical report using the SP surgical system. Eur Urol Suppl 18:e2282
57.
Martis G, Diana M, Ombres M (2007) Retropubic versus perineal radical prostatectomy in early prostate cancer: eight-year experience. J Surg Oncol 95(6):513–518PubMed
Metadata
Title
The evolution and resurgence of perineal prostatectomy in the robotic surgical era
Authors
Juan Garisto
Riccardo Bertolo
Clark A. Wilson
Jihad Kaouk
Publication date
01-04-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
World Journal of Urology / Issue 4/2020
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-03004-1

Other articles of this Issue 4/2020

World Journal of Urology 4/2020 Go to the issue

Topic Paper

Management of low-risk prostate cancer in patients with enlarged glands and lower urinary tract symptoms: robotic total prostatectomy, a novel technique

Original Article

Symptoms and diagnostic delays in bladder cancer with high risk of recurrence: results from a prospective FinnBladder 9 trial

Topic Paper

Best practices in near-infrared fluorescence imaging with indocyanine green (NIRF/ICG)-guided robotic urologic surgery: a systematic review-based expert consensus

Topic Paper

Robotic versus other nephroureterectomy techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 87,000 cases

Original Article

Accuracy of the preoperative PSA level for predicting clinically significant incidental transitional zone-prostate cancer before endoscopic enucleation of very large adenoma

Original Article

68Ga-PSMA PET/CT compared with MRI/CT and diffusion-weighted MRI for primary lymph node staging prior to definitive radiotherapy in prostate cancer: a prospective diagnostic test accuracy study