This year marks 12 years of the world's first robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) program, the Vattikuti Institute Prostatectomy (VIP). Experience with more than 7000 cases has helped standardize the operation, minimize complications, and enhance functional outcomes. In this article, we discuss our current technique of VIP including refinements such as Veil of Aphrodite nerve sparing using Harmonic ACE curved shears, high anterior release (super Veil), extended pelvic lymph node dissection, percutaneous suprapubic tube bladder drainage, and barbed suture for the urethrovesical anastomosis. In 2012, incorporation of the GelPoint access platform has the potential to further improve the oncologic performance of VIP, especially in high-risk patients.
AbbouCC, HoznekA, SalomonLet al.[Remote laparoscopic radical prostatectomy carried out with a robot. Report of a case](Fre) Prog Urol, 2000; 10:520–523.
7.
MenonM, ShrivastavaA, TewariAet al.Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: Establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol, 2002; 168:945–949.
8.
TrinhQD, SammonJ, SunMet al.Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy: Results from the nationwide inpatient sample. Eur Urol, 2012; 61:679–685.
9.
KowalczykKJ, LevyJM, CaplanCFet al.Temporal national trends of minimally invasive and retropubic radical prostatectomy outcomes from 2003 to 2007: Results from the 100% Medicare sample. Eur Urol, 2012; 61:803–809.
10.
LowranceWT, EasthamJA, SavageCet al.Contemporary open and robotic radical prostatectomy practice patterns among urologists in the United States. J Urol, 2012; 187:2087–2092.
11.
MenonM, ShrivastavaA, BhandariMet al.Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: Technical modifications in 2009. Eur Urol, 2009; 56:89–96.
12.
MenonM, ShrivastavaA, KaulSet al.Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: Contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol, 2007; 51:648–658.
13.
MenonM, MuhletalerF, CamposM, PeabodyJO. Assessment of early continence after reconstruction of the periprostatic tissues in patients undergoing computer assisted (robotic) prostatectomy: Results of a 2 group parallel randomized controlled trial. J Urol, 2008; 180:1018–1023.
14.
KraneLS, BhandariM, PeabodyJO, MenonM. Impact of percutaneous suprapubic tube drainage on patient discomfort after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol, 2009; 56:325–330.
15.
KaulS, SammonJ, BhandariAet al.A novel method of urethrovesical anastomosis during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using a unidirectional barbed wound closure device: Feasibility study and early outcomes in 51 patients. J Endourol, 2010; 24:1789–1793.
16.
MontorsiF, WilsonTG, RosenRCet al.Best practices in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: recommendations of the Pasadena Consensus Panel. Eur Urol, 2012; 62:368–381.
17.
EichelbergC, ErbersdoblerA, HaeseAet al.Frozen section for the management of intraoperatively detected palpable tumor lesions during nerve-sparing scheduled radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol, 2006; 49:1011–1018.
18.
MatteiA, FuechselFG, Bhatta DharNet al.The template of the primary lymphatic landing sites of the prostate should be revisited: Results of a multimodality mapping study. Eur Urol, 2008; 53:118–125.
19.
SammonJ, KimTK, TrinhQDet al.Anastomosis during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Randomized controlled trial comparing barbed and standard monofilament suture. Urology, 2011; 78:572–579.
20.
SammonJD, TrinhQD, SukumarSet al.Long-term follow-up of patients undergoing percutaneous suprapubic tube drainage after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP)BJU Int, 2012; 110:580–585.
21.
LeporH. A review of surgical techniques for radical prostatectomy. Rev Urol, 2005; 7,suppl 2:S11–S17.
22.
RoccoB, DjavanB. Robotic prostatectomy: Facts or fiction?Lancet, 2007; 369:723–724.
23.
KheterpalE, BhandariA, SiddiquiSet al.Management of rectal injury during robotic radical prostatectomy. Urology, 2011; 77:976–979.
24.
AgarwalPK, SammonJ, BhandariAet al.Safety profile of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A standardized report of complications in 3317 patients. Eur Urol, 2011; 59:684–698.
25.
KaulS, SaveraA, BadaniKet al.Functional outcomes and oncological efficacy of Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy with Veil of Aphrodite nerve-sparing: An analysis of 154 consecutive patients. BJU Int, 2006; 97:467–472.
26.
KaulS, MenonM. Robotic radical prostatectomy: Evolution from conventional to VIP. World J Urol, 2006; 24:152–160.
27.
MenonM, KaulS, BhandariAet al.Potency following robotic radical prostatectomy: A questionnaire based analysis of outcomes after conventional nerve sparing and prostatic fascia sparing techniques. J Urol, 2005; 174:2291–2296.
28.
GhaniKR, TrinhQD, SammonJDet al.Preoperative nomogram predicting erectile function two years after radical prostatectomy. J Urol, 2012; 187:E594–E595.
29.
MenonM, BhandariM, GuptaNet al.Biochemical recurrence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5-year follow-up. Eur Urol, 2010; 58:838–846.
30.
SuardiN, FicarraV, WillemsenPet al.Long-term biochemical recurrence rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Analysis of a single-center series of patients with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Urology, 2012; 79:133–138.
31.
BarocasDA, SalemS, KordanYet al.Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: Comparison of short-term biochemical recurrence-free survival. J Urol, 2010; 183:990–996.
KrambeckAE, DiMarcoDS, RangelLJet al.Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: A matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques. BJU Int, 2009; 103:448–453.
MurphyDG, KergerM, CroweHet al.Operative details and oncological and functional outcome of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: 400 cases with a minimum of 12 months follow-up. Eur Urol, 2009; 55:1358–1366.
36.
AkhavanA, LevinsonAW, MuntnerPet al.Risk stratification and early oncologic outcomes following robotic prostatectomy. JSLS, 2009; 13:515–521.
37.
XylinasE, DurandX, PloussardGet al.Evaluation of combined oncologic and functional outcomes after robotic-assisted laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: Trifecta rate of achieving continence, potency and cancer control. Urol Oncol, 2011E-pub ahead of print.
38.
MagheliA, GonzalgoML, SuLMet al.Impact of surgical technique (open vs laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted) on pathological and biochemical outcomes following radical prostatectomy: An analysis using propensity score matching. BJU Int, 2011; 107:1956–1962.
39.
PatelVR, CoelhoRF, ChauhanSet al.Continence, potency and oncological outcomes after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: Early trifecta results of a high-volume surgeon. BJU Int, 2010; 106:696–702.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
