Nicholas Bakalar’s May 27 article “Mixed Outcomes in Laparoscopy for Prostates” could potentially
mislead readers to believe that daVinci, or
“robot assisted,” laparoscopic prostate
cancer surgeries are far riskier than
traditional surgery techniques. Citing a
recently published Journal of Clinical
Oncology study, its authors and other
like-minded experts, Mr. Bakalar’s article
not only emphasizes just the potential negative
outcomes – which might accompany any
type of radical surgery – but also ignores
the fact that the Journal study’s data
is more than three years old. This gives
readers the false impression that the state of
prostate cancer surgery in 2008 is the same as
it was in 2005. I must respectfully
disagree.
As Director of the Prostate Center of Austin, TX, and
Director of
Robotic Surgery, I have performed
more than 1,200 daVinci prostate surgeries and continue
to perform
more than 300 daVinci Robotic Prostate
Surgeries a year. While
no surgery comes without some level of risk, my
extensive personal experience performing
daVinci prostate surgery since 2004 has
shown that its benefits far outweigh the
possible disadvantages.
With daVinci robotic surgery, patients
experience cure rates, urinary
control rates, and post-operative erectile
function that are equal to and – in some
surgeons’ hands – better than traditional
open surgery. Thanks
to the heightened precision and vision provided
by daVinci robotic techniques, vital
nerves can be preserved so prostate cancer
doesn’t have to mean impotence for prostate
cancer patients. Furthermore, patients experience quicker
recovery periods and less bleeding due to the
minimally invasive nature of the daVinci
procedure. For these important reasons
over 60 percent of prostate cancer
patients today choose robotic surgery making
daVinci prostate cancer surgery the most often
chosen option for treating prostate cancer.
Coincidentally, on the same day Mr. Bakalar’s story ran in
the New York Times, ABC News aired a
story that lauded the benefits of daVinci
Robotic Surgery as a viable alternative to open
heart surgery. Also acknowledging
inherent risks, that story, however, cited
several medical experts who believe that
robotics “could make a major difference in
bypass surgery.” Perhaps many New
York Times readers facing critical
decisions about prostate or other surgeries in
the future – would benefit from this more
recent and balanced perspective on daVinci
Robotic Surgery.
