da-vinci-surgery-vs.-open-surgery-vs.-laparoscopic-1

da Vinci® vs. Open vs. Laparoscopy

da Vinci® Prostatectomy Brochure

Download Prostatectomy Brochure

Download Brochure

The following table looks at patient outcomes following surgery for prostate cancer (radical prostatectomy), and compares "best in class" data from three types of surgery. As you can see, da Vinci Prostatectomy (dVP) shows measurable advantages as compared to both conventional open surgery (open), performed through large incisions, as well as conventional minimally invasive laparoscopic (lap) surgery.

Post-Operative Results of da Vinci Prostatectomy

da Vinci Surgery - Treatment Options for Prostate Cancer


  1. Patel VR, Thaly R, Shah K.Robotic radical prostatectomy: outcomes of 500 cases. BJU Int. 2007 May;99(5):1109-12.
  2. Scardino PT. Open Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy. Presented at the American Urological Association’s Carcinoma of the Prostate Course, San Francisco, California, Sept. 30 – Oct. 1 2005
  3. Touijer K, Kuroiwa K, Saranchuk JW, Hassen WA, Trabulsi EJ, Reuter VE, Guillonneau B. Quality improvement in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for pT2 prostate cancer: impact of video documentation review on positive surgical margin. J Urol. 2005 Mar;173(3):765-8. p. 766 (Results)
  4. Bhandari, A., McIntire, L., Kaul, S.A., Hemal, A.K., Peabody, J.O., and Menon, M. (2005). Perioperative complications of robotic radical prostatectomy after the learning curve. J Urol 174, 915-918.
  5. Brown, J.A., Garlitz, C., Gomella, L.G., McGinnis, D.E., Diamond, S.M., and Strup, S.E. (2004). Perioperative morbidity of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared with open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urologic oncology 22, 102-106.
  6. Guillonneau, B., Rozet, F., Cathelineau, X., Lay, F., Barret, E., Doublet, J.D., Baumert, H., and Vallancien, G. (2002). Perioperative complications of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris 3-year experience. The Journal of urology 167, 51-56.
  7. Locke, DR, Klimberg IW and Sessions RP. Robotic Radical Prostatectomy With Continence And Potency Sparing Technique: An Analysis Of The First 250 Cases. Submitted To Journal Of Urology, Publication Date TBD. p. 5 table 4.1
  8. Walsh PC. Patient-reported urinary continence and sexual function after anatomic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2000 Jul;164(1):242. p. 59 table 1.
  9. Goeman, L., Salomon, L., La De Taille, A., Vordos, D., Hoznek, A., Yiou, R., and Abbou, C.C. (2006). Long-term functional and oncological results after retroperitoneal laparoscopic prostatectomy according to a prospective evaluation of 550 patients. World J Urol 24, 281-288.
  10. Kaul, S., Bhandari, A., Hemal, A., Savera, A., Shrivastava, A., and Menon, M. (2005). Robotic radical prostatectomy with preservation of the prostatic fascia: a feasibility study. Urology 66, 1261-1265.
  11. Parsons JK, Marschke P, Maples P, Walsh PC. Effect of methylprednisolone on return of sexual function after nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 2004 Nov;64(5):987-90.
  12. Su, L.M., Link, R.E., Bhayani, S.B., Sullivan, W., and Pavlovich, C.P. (2004). Nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: replicating the open surgical technique. Urology 64, 123
  13. Dahl DM, L'esperance JO, Trainer AF, Jiang Z, Gallagher K, Litwin DE, Blute RD Jr. “Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial 70 cases at a U.S. university medical center.”Urology. 2002 Nov;60(5):859-63.

All surgery presents risk, including da Vinci Surgery. Results, including cosmetic results, may vary. Serious complications may occur in any surgery, up to and including death. Examples of serious and life-threatening complications, which may require hospitalization, include injury to tissues or organs; bleeding; infection, and internal scarring that can cause long-lasting dysfunction or pain. Temporary pain or nerve injury has been linked to the inverted position often used during abdominal and pelvic surgery. Patients should understand that risks of surgery include potential for human error and potential for equipment failure. Risk specific to minimally invasive surgery may include: a longer operative time; the need to convert the procedure to an open approach; or the need for additional or larger incision sites. Converting the procedure to open could mean a longer operative time, long time under anesthesia, and could lead to increased complications. Research suggests that there may be an increased risk of incision-site hernia with single-incision surgery. Patients who bleed easily, have abnormal blood clotting, are pregnant or morbidly obese are typically not candidates for minimally invasive surgery, including da Vinci Surgery. Other surgical approaches are available. Patients should review the risks associated with all surgical approaches. They should talk to their doctors about their surgical experience and to decide if da Vinci is right for them. For more complete information on surgical risks, safety and indications for use, please refer to http://www.davincisurgery.com/da-vinci-surgery/safety-information.php.

©2013 Intuitive Surgical. All rights reserved. Intuitive, Intuitive Surgical, da Vinci, da Vinci S, da Vinci Si, Single-Site, TilePro, FireFly, Skills Simulator, EndoWrist and EndoWrist One are trademarks or registered trademarks of Intuitive Surgical. All other product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders.

Content provided by Intuitive Surgical.

PN 1002343 Rev A 04/13

Practis, Inc. Powered by Encounter CSS ™ | Terms of Use