Current issues of choosing modern technologies used at the surgical stage of treatment of patients with prostate cancer (literature review)
https://doi.org/10.18705/3034-7270-2025-1-3-36-46
EDN: JTWETI
Abstract
A review of scientific publications on the results of the use of modern technologies in the implementation of radical surgical treatment of patients with prostate cancer has been conducted. Taking into account the development of science and the acquisition of appropriate experience by surgeons, increasing the capabilities of technical equipment for medical organizations, radical prostatectomy is currently associated with an improvement in the functional results of its use in oncourological practice. The treatment of patients using innovative surgical technologies is guaranteed to be accompanied by a reduction in the severity of surgical trauma and minimization of the risks of complications after it. Performing radical prostatectomy with the so-called traditional (open) access is considered the “gold standard” for the treatment of patients with malignant tumors of the prostate gland. However, the development of laparoscopic and robotic technologies, as the experience of specialists from medical organizations that provide care to patients with oncourological pathology, allows us to be optimistic about the advantages of minimally invasive technologies in terms of improving the quality of examination and treatment of patients with prostate cancer.
Supporting agencies: This study was not supported by any external sources of funding
About the Authors
K. E. Chernov
Novgorod State University named after Yaroslav the Wise
Россия
Россия
Chernov Kirill E. – Candidate of Medical Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Hospital Surgery.
Veliky Novgorod
K. N. Movchan
Medical Information and Analytical Center
Россия
Россия
Movchan Konstantin N. – Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor, Head of the Department for the Organization of Quality Examination of Medical Care.
St. Petersburg
M. G. Abbasov
Novgorod State University named after Yaroslav the Wise
Россия
Россия
Abbasov Mirza Gusan Oglu – Assistant of the Department of Hospital Surgery.
Veliky Novgorod
A. Yu. Chernova
Medical Information and Analytical Center
Россия
Россия
Chernova Anna Yu. – Expert Physician at the Department for the Organization of Medical Care Quality Assessment.
St. Petersburg
References
1. Albers P., Franiel T., Kötter T., et al. The Early Detection, Diagnostic Evaluation, and Local Treatment of Prostate Cancer: A Paradigm Shift. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2025. DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.m2025.0099.
2. Khat'kov I.E., Pushkar' D.Yu. Prostate cancer: cooperation between urologists and oncologists: educational and methodological recommendations No. 80. Moscow: "ABV-press", 2018, 43 p. (In Russ.).
3. Day E., Tzelves L., Dickinson L., et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of preoperative surgical planning in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy on trifecta outcomes. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2025;77(1):25–32. DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6051.25.06144-0.
4. Matalani C.F.A., Costa M.S.S., Rocha M.R.D., et al. Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy versus open radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2025;80:100636. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinsp.2025.100636.
5. Medvedev V.L. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology Herald. 2018;6(4):67–76. (In Russ.).
6. Mosoyan M.S., Ilin D.M. Early continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Translational Medicine. 2017;4(6):53–61. (In Russ.).
7. DI Bello F., Rodriguez Peñaranda N., Marmiroli A., et al. Total hospital cost of robot-assisted approach in major urological cancer surgeries. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2025;77(2):217–225. DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6051.25.06282-2.
8. Wojtarowicz M., Przepiera A., Lemiński A., et al. Assessment of the Impact of Pentafecta Parameters Affecting the Quality of Life of Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(2):944. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20020944.
9. Young H.H. Conservative perineal prostatectomy: the results of two years’ experience and report of seventy-five cases. Ann Surg. 1905;41(4):549–557.
10. Schuessler W.W., Schulam P.G., Clayman R.V., Kavoussi L.R. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial shortterm experience. Urology. 1997;50(6):854–857. DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00543-8.
11. Prostate cancer. Surgical innovations / Ed. by A.V. Govorov, M.I. Kogan, D.Yu. Pushkar. Moscow: “ABV-Press” Publishing House; 2024, 432 p. (In Russ.).
12. Chute R. Radical retropubic prostatectomy for cancer. J Urol. 1954;71(3):347–372. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)67796-6.
13. Bezrukov E.A. Perineal radical prostatectomy. Urology Herald. 2018;6(2):76–84. (In Russ.).
14. Walsh P.C., Lepor H., Eggleston J.C. Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations. Prostate. 1983;4(5):473–485. DOI: 10.1002/pros.2990040506.
15. Chibichyan M.B. Open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology Herald. 2018;6(1):81–93. (In Russ.).
16. Travassos T.C., Pereira J.C.N., Monteiro E.D., et al. Enhanced recovery open radical prostatectomy: costs and length of hospital stay. Int J Physiol Pathophysiol Pharmacol. 2021;13(5):132–139.
17. Kogan M.I., Loran O.B., Petrov S.B. Radical surgery for prostate cancer. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media; 2006. (In Russ.).
18. Van Poppel H., Everaerts W., Tosco L., et al. Open and robotic radical prostatectomy. Asian J Urol. 2019;6(2):125–128. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajur.2018.12.002.
19. Wieland W.F., Burger M., Denzinger S., et al. Radical Prostatectomy: from Open Surgery towards Robotic Laparoscopy. Creative surgery and oncology. 2020;10(2):87–93. (In Russ.).
20. Gul D., Cimen H.I., Atik Y.T., et al. Effects of robotic surgery experience on open radical prostatectomy results: single centre & single surgeon experience. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):30422. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-80141-7.
21. Wang C.J., Chen C.X., Liu Y., et al. Comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes in obese patients undergoing robotassisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus open radical prostatectomy (ORP): a systematic review and meta analysis. J Robot Surg. 2024;18(1):248. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-02010-9.
22. Munver R., Volfson I.A., Kesler S.S., et al. Transition from open to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: 7 years experience at Hackensack University Medical Center. J Robot Surg. 2007;1(2):155–159. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-007-0023-0.
23. Garisto J., Bertolo R., Wilson C.A., Kaouk J. The evolution and resurgence of perineal prostatectomy in the robotic surgical era. World J Urol. 2020;38(4):821–828. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-019-03004-1.
24. Li I.K. Anatomical and topographical rationale for radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy via perineal access: Candidate of Medical Sciences dissertation. Moscow, 2006. (In Russ.).
25. Wroński S. Radical perineal prostatectomy – the contemporary resurgence of a genuinely minimally invasive procedure: Procedure outline. Comparison of the advantages, disadvantages, and outcomes of different surgical techniques of treating organ-confined prostate cancer (PCa). A literature review with special focus on perineal prostatectomy. Cent European J Urol. 2012;65(4):188–194.
26. Altay B., Erkurt B., Guzelburc V., et al. Impact of obesity on functional and oncological outcomes in radical perineal prostatectomy. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015;9(11-12):E766–E769. DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.3094.
27. Schuessler W.W., Schulam P.G., Clayman R.V., Kavoussi L.R. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial shortterm experience. Urology. 1997;50(6):854–857. DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00543-8.
28. Rabboy A., Ferzli G., Albert P. Initial experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 1997;50(6):849–853. DOI: 10.1016/S00904295(97)00485-8.
29. Rassweiler J., Sentker L., Seemann O., et al. Heilbronn laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Technique and results after 100 cases. Eur Urol. 2001;40(1):54–64. DOI: 10.1159/000049749.
30. Bollens R., Vanden Bossche M., Roumeguere T., et al. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Results after 50 cases. Eur Urol. 2001;40(1):65–69. DOI: 10.1159/000049750.
31. Medvedev V.L., Kogan M.I., Kostyukov S.I., et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Abstracts of scientific papers from the first congress of the Professional Association of Andrologists of Russia. Kislovodsk, 2001, 47 p. (In Russ.).
32. Popov S.V., Guseynov R.G., Orlov I.N., et al. Outcomes of radical prostatectomy in treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer: clinical observations. Cancer Urology. 2022;18(4):42–55. (In Russ.).
33. Patel V.R., Coelho R.F., Palmer K.J., Rocco B. Periurethral suspension stitch during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of the technique and continence outcomes. Eur Urol. 2009;56(3):472–478. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.06.007.
34. Rocco F., Carmignani L., Acquati P., et al. Restoration of posterior aspect of rhabdosphincter shortens continence time after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2006;175(6):2201–2206. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00262-X.
35. Chen Y., Tan Q., Zhu J., et al. Development and validation of a simulation training platform for the ligation of deep dorsal vein complex in radical prostatectomy. Front Oncol. 2024;14:1407393. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1407393.
36. Ferrari D., Violante T., Novelli M., et al. The death of laparoscopy. Surg Endosc. 2024;38(5):2677–2688. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-10774-2.
37. Alekseev B.Ya., Kaprin A.D., Matveev V.B., Nyushko K.M. Clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. Moscow: P. Hertsen Moscow Oncology Research Institute; 2014, 44 p.
38. Partin A.W., Mangold L.A., Lamm D.M., et al. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology. 2001;58(6):843–848. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(01)01441-8.
39. Eifler J.B., Feng Z., Lin B.M., et al. An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011. BJU Int. 2013;111(1):22–29. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11324.x.
40. Alekseev B.Y., Nyushko K.M., Krasheninnikov A.A., et al. High-risk prostate cancer stage ST2C: a truly significant prognostic factor. Proceedings of the II National Congress ‘Reproductive Organ Oncology: From Prevention and Early Detection to Effective Treatment, 11–13 May 2017, Moscow; 2017, pp. 18. (In Russ.).
41. Devassy R., Hanif S., Krentel H., et al. Laparoscopic ultrasonic dissectors: technology update by a review of literature. Med Devices (Auckl). 2018;12:1–7. DOI: 10.2147/MDER.S113262.
42. Popov S.V., Guseynov R.G., Orlov I.N., et al. Efficiency of the three-dimensional visualization system in the performance of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Experimental and Clinical Urology. 2023;16(1):35–41 (In Russ.).
43. Patel H.R., Ribal M.J., Arya M., et al. Is it worth revisiting laparoscopic three-dimensional visualization? A validated assessment. Urology. 2007;70(1):47–49. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.03.014.
44. Hanna G.B., Cuschieri A. Influence of two-dimensional and threedimensional imaging on endoscopic bowel suturing. World J Surg. 2000;24(4):444–449. DOI: 10.1007/s002689910070.
45. Cheng J., Gao J., Shuai X., et al. Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy in surgical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2016;7(43):70979–70990. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.10916.
46. Sheptunov S.A., Vasiliev A.O., Kolontarev K.B., et al. Robotic surgery – digital technology that saves lives. City HealthCare Journal. 2020;1(1):60–72. (In Russ.).
47. Arms R.G. 3rd, Sun C.C., Burzawa J.K., et al. Improvement in quality of life after robotic surgery results in patient satisfaction. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;138(3):727–730. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.07.013.
48. Da Vinci Robot in Russia: statistics, directions [Internet]. Davinci, 2025 [cited 2025 Jul 20]. Available from: https://robot-davinci.ru/zapisi/robot-da-vinchi-v-rossii]. (In Russ.).
49. Minimally Invasive Care [Internet]. Intuitive; 2025 [cited 2025 Jul 20]. Available from: https://www.intuitive.com/enus/about-us/company.
50. Alemozaffar M., Sanda M., Yecies D., et al. Bench-prostatectomy: results from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Eur Urol. 2015;67(3):432–438. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.039.
51. Moretti T.B.C., Magna L.A., Reis L.O. Continence criteria of 193 618 patients after open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2024;134(1):13–21. DOI: 10.1111/bju.16180.
52. Gamal A., Moschovas M.C., Saikali S., et al. Comparing the Technological and Intraoperative Performances of Da Vinci xi and DaVinci 5 Robotic Platforms in Patients Undergoing Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy. Int Braz J Urol. 2025;51(1):e20240569. DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2024.0569.
53. Dobbs R.W., Halgrimson W.R., Madueke I., et al. Singleport robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial experience and technique with the da Vinci® SP platform. BJU Int. 2019;124(6):1022–1027. DOI: 10.1111/bju.14864.
54. Hemal S., Sobhani S. Single-Port Transvesical Robotic Radical Prostatectomy in a Patient with Hostile Abdomen. Int Braz J Urol. 2024;50(6):779–780. DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2024.0333.
55. Khandalavala K., Shimon T., Flores L., et al. Emerging surgical robotic technology: a progression toward microbots. Annals of Laparoscopic and Endoscopic Surgery. 2020;5:3. DOI:10.21037/ales.2019.10.02.
56. Nahas W.C., Rodrigues G.J., Rodrigues Gonçalves F.A., et al. Perioperative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes Between Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy and Open Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Urol. 2024;212(1):32–40. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003967.
57. Prontera P.P., Prusciano F.R., Marco L., et al. Impact of laparoscopic experience on learning curves in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RaRP): a comparative analysis of oncological and functional outcomes. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2025;97(2):13640. DOI:10.4081/aiua.2025.13640.
58. Ramsay C., Pickard R., Robertson C., et al. Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(41):1–313. DOI: 10.3310/hta16410.
59. Allan C., Ilic D. Laparoscopic versus Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for the Treatment of Localised Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. Urol Int. 2016;96(4):373–378. DOI:10.1159/000435861.
Review
For citations:
Chernov K.E., Movchan K.N., Abbasov M.G., Chernova A.Yu. Current issues of choosing modern technologies used at the surgical stage of treatment of patients with prostate cancer (literature review). Russian surgical journal. 2025;1(3):36-46. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18705/3034-7270-2025-1-3-36-46. EDN: JTWETI
Views:
86
JATS XML
Email this article 