Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007;1(2):155-9.
doi: 10.1007/s11701-007-0023-0. Epub 2007 May 10.

Transition from open to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: 7 years experience at Hackensack University Medical Center

Ravi Munver  1 , Ilya A Volfson  2 , Stuart S Kesler  2 , Michael Nazmy  3 , Ihor S Sawczuk  1
Affiliations

Transition from open to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: 7 years experience at Hackensack University Medical Center

Ravi Munver et al. J Robot Surg. 2007.

Abstract

Background and objective Open radical prostatectomy (ORP) is the standard approach for the surgical management of localized prostate cancer. The steep learning curve for laparoscopic prostatectomy poses a challenge for surgeons with minimal laparoscopic experience. As robotic-assisted surgery becomes more prevalent in the urologic community, there appears to be an increasing interest in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) among urologists throughout the United States. We report on the impact of robotics on practice patterns in the treatment of localized prostate cancer at a single institution. Methods A retrospective review was conducted of radical prostatectomies performed between January 2000 and December 2006 at Hackensack University Medical Center (Hackensack, N.J.). Over this time period, our medical center acquired four da Vinci™ Surgical Systems. The trends for open and robotic-assisted prostatectomies were analyzed. Results Over a 7-year period (2000-2006), a total of 1252 radical prostatectomies were performed by 17 urologists: 469 (37%) ORPs and 783 (63%) RARPs. The total number of prostatectomies increased annually during this time period. The robotic-assisted procedure was predominantly performed by three (18%) urologists from 2001-2003, seven (41%) in 2004, nine (53%) in 2005, and 11 (65%) in 2006. As more urologists became trained in robotic-assisted surgery, the trend gradually shifted towards robotic-assisted prostatectomy. In 2001, only 9.6% of all radical prostatectomies at our institution were performed with robotic assistance; in 2006, this had risen to 92.8%. Conclusion The acquisition of the da Vinci™ Surgical System has allowed robotic-assisted surgery to be an available alternative to open surgery at a single institution. The implementation of robotic technology has led to the gradual adoption of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy by many of the urologists that surgically treat prostate cancer. As a result, the percentage of open prostatectomies has steadily decreased over time, while trends in robotic-assisted prostatectomies have increased. The impact of robotics also appears to have had an influential effect on the total number of prostatectomies performed annually.

Keywords: Practice patterns; Prostate cancer; Robotics; Telesurgery; da Vinci.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Percentage of urologic surgeons performing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy at Hackensack University Medical Center
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Number of total radical prostatectomies performed at Hackensack University Medical Center during the period 2000–2006
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Number of open and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies performed at Hackensack University Medical Center during the period 2000–2006
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Percentage of open and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies performed at Hackensack University Medical Center during the period 2000–2006
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Percentage of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies performed at Hackensack University Medical Center and in the United States (2000–2006)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Tewari A, Shrivasatava A, Menon M. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int. 2003;92:205–210. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410X.2003.04311.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody JO, et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy, a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy for management of localized carcinoma of the prostate: experience of over 1100 cases. Urol Clin North Am. 2004;31:701–717. doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2004.06.011. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ahlering TE, Woo D, Eichel L, Lee DI, Edwards R, Skarecky DW. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon’s outcomes. Urology. 2004;63:819–822. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.01.038. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tewari A, Peabody J, Sarle R, et al. Technique of da Vinci robot-assisted anatomic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2002;60:569–572. doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01852-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sundaram CP, Koch MO, Gardner TT, et al. Utility of the fourth arm to facilitate robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2005;95:183–186. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05274.x. - DOI - PubMed