The outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy are highly dependent on the surgeon’s technique and most important, experience.1-5 Sexual and urinary function outcomes, as well as cancer-specific results (particularly positive surgical margins) have a strong association with the case volume and individual surgeon.6
Experience
At the University of Chicago Medical Center, as of March 2009, our robotic team has performed over 2,450 robotic prostatectomies since February 2003. We were the first center in the state of Illinois to perform robotic prostatectomy. As of March 2009, we are the:
- MOST EXPERIENCED robotic prostatectomy team in the state of Illinois
- 6th most experienced team in the United States
- 6th most experienced worldwide
Optimal Outcomes
Potency (sexual function) recovery rates have further improved with the use of a novel HYPOTHERMAL NERVE PRESERVATION TECHNIQUE through tissue cooling during surgery. There are still many surgeons using thermal energy during nerve preservation which has been shown to significantly impair sexual function recovery.
Communication and Compassion
The University of Chicago team takes the time to address all aspects of prostate cancer management during counseling. We are patient, thorough in our explanations and willing to dedicate the time necessary during all visits to provide a comprehensive summary of your care. We believe the key components to optimal outcomes are surgical expertise, bed-side manner and effective patient communication (explanation of all aspects of care).
In challenging cases with high grade prostate cancer features (PSA elevations >10-20ng/mL, high Gleason grade >8), we collaborate with the University of Chicago multidisciplinary prostate cancer team to ensure that state-of-the-art medical care is available to the patient.
1. Wilt TJ, Shamliyan TA, Taylor BC, Macdonald R, Kane RL. Association Between Hospital and Surgeon Radical Prostatectomy Volume and Patient Outcomes: A Systematic Review. J Urol 2008; in press.
2. Joudi FN, Konety BR. The volume/outcome relationship in urologic cancer surgery. Support Cancer Ther 2004; 2:42-46.
3. Denberg TD, Flanigan RC, Kim FJ, Hoffman RM, Steiner JF. Self-reported volume of radical prostatectomies among urologists in the USA. BJU Int 2007; 99:339-343.
4. Chun FK, Briganti A, Antebi E, Graefen M et al. Surgical volume is related to the rate of positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy in European patients. BJU Int 2006; 98:1204-1209.
5. Klein EA, Bianco FJ, Serio AM, Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Pontes JE, Vickers AJ, Scardino PT. Surgeon experience is strongly associated with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for all preoperative risk categories. J Urol 2008; 179:2212-2216.
6. Bianco FR et al, AUA 2006.
Reported Case Numbers as of June 2008
