Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy and Robotic- Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy in High- Risk Prostate Cancer Disease Control Result Analysis

Introduction

Radical prostatectomy is a common procedure utilized to treat prostate cancer. Even increasing evidence over the past decade supports the oncologic efficacy of debates on the over-treatment triggered Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy (LRP) and Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) in high risk and very high-risk prostate cancer disease control result analysis [1,2]. In addition, Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) based screening strategy for prostate cancer patients even in high-risk disease. Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy (LRP) is the traditional approach to surgery prostatectomy used to remove a patient’s prostate cancer [3]. LRP surgery is different from traditional open surgery to remove prostate cancer and nearby tissues. The current study applied RARP as the standard laparoscopic prostatectomy method nowadays being performed worldwide because recovery after carrying out robot-assisted radical prostatectomy occurs in a shorter time [4-6]. With the advent of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy surgical techniques, the laparoscopic method of intra peritoneal prostate cancer was treated with radical prostatectomy [7-10]. LRP was performed successfully in 1992 and 1997 [11]. LRP technique was not widely accepted because of technical difficulty and no criterion standard. However, RARP technique has been gaining widespread acceptance worldwide. RARP approach offers the minimally invasive laparoscopic prostatectomy procedure [12,13]. Therefore, RARP is an advanced robotic technology for use in human surgical procedures better than LRP. In a laparoscopic prostatectomy, the surgeon makes several smaller incisions and inserts special long instruments in the abdominal wall to remove the prostate.

The successful procedure is determined mainly by the experience and skill of the surgeon. LRP has less blood loss and pain, shorter hospital stays, and faster recovery times advantages. No need to keep the catheter on the bladder for too long. However, LRP has erection problems and trouble holding urine side effects. Recovery of bladder control may be delayed slightly with this approach. The surgeon holds the tools directly or uses a control panel to precisely move the robotic arms that hold the tools. This approach to prostatectomy has become more common in recent years. Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) is known as a robotic system for LRP. For the surgeon, the robotic laparoscopic prostatectomy has provided precision and maneuverability. When RARP than standard LRP advantages, the surgeon operates several small incisions in the PSA patient’s abdomen only sits at a control panel and moves robotic arms. The success of either type of RARP surgery is the surgeon’s experience and skill. Robotic prostatectomy has the same LRP advantages and side effects approach. This perspective according to NCCN control result analysis determined high-risk and very high-risk prostate cancer disease between LRP and RARP groups. There is still much room to improve prostatectomy control by increasing the surgical survival probability rate [14]. Options for minimally invasive surgical treatment of prostate cancer include LRP and RARP [15,16]. Trends in treatment for prostate cancer after the emergence of RARP were obvious [17].

The characteristics of prostate cancer disease from NCCN data include high-risk and very high-risk patients. The percentage of using the RARP in patients with localized prostate cancer receiving radical prostatectomy is now about 70% [18]. The potential for RARP to become the mainstream treatment for prostate cancer prostatectomy [19]. RARP function results were suggested followed by in high-risk than very high-risk groups. The RARP operative times need to be ranged from 8~11 hours and a hospital stay of 7.3 days [20]. Excellent functional outcomes were reported in several large series from the positive surgical margin rate was from 11% to 30% after LRP, and from 9.6% to 26% after RARP [21]. To examine the univariate and adjusted hazard and odds ratios of LRP and RARP for BCR, post-operative-detective PSA, and time to BCR in high-risk and very high-risk groups. To examine the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in the early cases of this new technique from a single institution. Experience of RARP performed by a single surgeon showed RARP has excellent facilitating hastening mastery of the procedure [22,23]. According to the above suggests that RARP is a safe and effective procedure. LRP is often difficult through internal dissection because of the adhesion of the preperitoneal cavity [24]. Very high-risk prostate cancer is not a candidate for radical prostatectomy and selected high risk group prostate cancer patients might benefit from radical prostatectomy [25,26]. Therefore, a prospective database was created to monitor LRP and PARP operative outcomes undergoing clinical hazard and odds ratios for carcinoma of the prostate. The local results are at least comparable with other early series in the perspective.

Discussion

Radical prostatectomy is a common procedure utilized to treat prostate cancer. Even increasing evidence over the past decade supports the oncologic efficacy of debates on the over-treatment triggered Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) in very high-risk and high-risk prostate cancer control result analysis [27]. However, the RARP technique has been gaining widespread acceptance worldwide. The RARP approach offers a minimally invasive laparoscopic prostatectomy procedure [28]. RARP is an advanced robotic technology for use in human surgical procedures better than LRP. With the anesthesia of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) surgical techniques, the methods of inhalation, intravenous, compound, and combined general anesthesia were treated with radical prostatectomy [29]. RARP is the standard radical prostatectomy method nowadays being performed worldwide recovery after carrying out robot-assisted radical prostatectomy causes dementia in a shorter time or not. According to the above suggestions, radical prostatectomy is a safe and effective procedure. Experience of radical prostatectomy performed by surgeon showed radical prostatectomy has excellent facilitating hastening mastery of the procedure [30]. Radical prostatectomy has become the most common minimally invasive surgical procedure for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Herein, in this context of dementia, we suggest how therapeutic approaches promote radical prostatectomy to prevent dementia and preserve brain health.

Acknowledgements

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

• Yan T, Li S, Yu J (2024) The effect of transvesical laparoscopic radical prostatectomy on sexual function and urinary continence. BMC Surg 24(1): 276.
• Gulsen M, Mercimek MN, Aydin C, Ozden E (2024) Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Assessing the Impact of Residency Training on Early Surgical Experience. Arch Esp Urol 77(8): 850-857.
• Huang J, Dai X, Sun J, Fan Y, Guo C (2024) Prediction models for urinary incontinence after robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review. J Robot Surg 18(1): 249.
• Liem SS, Jivanji D, Brown S, Demus T, Chang SP, et al. (2024) Feasibility of same-day discharge of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection. World J Urol 42(1): 72.
• Hernandez-Meza G, Gainsburg DM (2023) Anesthetic concerns for robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: an update. Minerva Anestesiol 89(9): 812-823.
• Roy SS, Sathe AA, Watson MJ, Singh A (2023) Comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: SP versus XI, a single surgeon experience. J Robot Surg 17(6): 2817-2821.
• Yazici S, Tonyali S (2024) Comparison of Health-Related Quality of Life Changes in Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic versus Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic review. Urol J 21(1): 14-19.
• Sykes J, Bell S, Bukavina L, Kutikov A, Wei S, et al. (2022) Splenosis in patient undergoing robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urol Case Rep 45: 102251.
• Polo-Alonso E, Chui W, Chan Y (2022) Left ectopic ureteral insertion into seminal vesicle detected after robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urol Case Rep 45: 102173.
• Alanee S, Chammout D, Deebajah M, Peabody J, Menon M (2022) Association of request for opioid medications refill after hospital discharge with race in patients with prostate cancer treated with robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Opioid Manag 18(5): 447-453.
• Sayyid RK, Sherwood D, Simpson WG, Terris MK, Klaassen Z, et al. (2020) Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: racial considerations for 250 consecutive cases. J Robot Surg 15(2): 221-228.
• Ratanapornsompong W, Pacharatakul S, Sangkum P, Leenanupan C, Kongcharoensombat W (2020) Effect of puboprostatic ligament preservation during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy on early continence: Randomized controlled trial. Asian J Urol 8(3): 260-268.
• Akpinar C, Suer E, Turkolmez K, Beduk Y (2019) Combined Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy and Partial Nephrectomy, Rare Coincidence. Urology 128: 1-4.
• Hostiou T, Vergnolles M, Robert G, Malvy D (2018) An Unusual Finding During Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy. Clin Infect Dis 67(5): 802-804.
• Chang Y, Lu X, Zhu Q, Xu C, Sun Y, et al. (2018) Single-port transperitoneal robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (spRALP): Initial experience. Asian J Urol 6(3): 294-297.
• Brubaker L, Allgaeuer M, Turkbey B, Pinto P, Sidana A (2017) Encountering "Dropped" Gallstones During Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy. Urology 103: e11-e12.
• Agarwal G, Valderrama O, Luchey AM, Pow-Sang JM (2015) Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy. Cancer Control 22(3): 283-290.
• Jing J, Honey ML (2016) Using a Checklist in Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Procedures. AORN J. 104(2): 145-152.
• Huang J, Dai X, Sun J, Fan Y, Guo C (2024) Prediction models for urinary incontinence after robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review. J Robot Surg 18(1): 249.
• Li E, Cheng Q (2024) Analysis of Changes and Diagnostic Value of Doppler Ultrasound Parameters in Patients with Acute Kidney Injury after Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy. Arch Esp Urol 77(6): 651-657.
• Bejrananda T, Pliensiri P (2023) Prediction of biochemical recurrence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BMC Urol 23(1): 183.
• Li C, Wan ZQ, Zheng DB, Wang YL (2024) Effects of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy on wound infection of surgery in patients with prostate cancer: A meta-analysis. Int Wound J 21(2): e14774.
• Wang CJ, Pang CC, Qin J, Chen CX, Huang HT, et al. (2024) A comprehensive examination and meta-analysis evaluating perioperative, oncological, and functional results of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in comparison to three-dimensional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (3D LRP). J Robot Surg 18(1): 356.
• Tejedor A, Bijelic L, García M (2024) Feasibility of opioid-free anesthesia in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A retrospective, quasi-experimental study. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 40(3): 523-529.
• Zhi W, Wang Y, Wang L, Yang L (2024) Comparative assessment of safety and efficacy between the AirSeal system and conventional insufflation system in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg 18(1): 291.
• Geraghty K, Keane K, Davis N (2024) Systematic review on urinary continence rates after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Ir J Med Sci 193(3): 1603-1612.
• Xin L, Guo J (2024) Impacts of Perioperative Comprehensive Nursing Intervention on Postoperative Urinary Incontinence and Quality of Life of Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy. Cancer Invest 42(3): 202-211.
• Bejrananda T, Jakjaroenrit N (2023) Prostatic schwannoma discovered after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A case report with literature review. IJU Case Rep 7(1): 56-59.
• Fan S, Chen Z, Zhou F, Lv Q, Wang D, et al. (2024) Comparison of perioperative and functional outcomes of single-incision versus standard multi-incision robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective, controlled, nonrandomized trial. J Robot Surg 18(1): 195.
• Zhan X, Liu Q, Xu J, Ouyang J (2024) A Modified Lateral Seminal Vesicle Approach Preserving the Bladder Neck in Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Improves Urinary Continence Recovery. Ann Ital Chir 95(4): 737-743.