SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • continence;
  • erectile function;
  • laparoscopy;
  • outcomes;
  • prostatectomy;
  • prostate cancer;
  • robotics

OBJECTIVE

To compare our experience of pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RAP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The two techniques were compared retrospectively in 100 patients with localized prostate cancer who had LRP or RAP (50 each). Both groups were similar in age, serum prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason score and clinical stage. Their charts were reviewed, collating intraoperative data and early functional outcome.

RESULTS

The mean surgical time for LRP and RAP was 235 and 202 min (P > 0.05) and mean (95% confidence interval) blood loss 299 (40) and 206 (63) mL (P = 0.014), with no transfusions in either group. The positive margin rate did not differ significantly (14% LRP and 12% RAP) and there was no biochemical recurrence in either group. Early functional outcomes were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Both LRP and RAP are technically demanding, but feasible, with the patient clearly benefiting. There were no major surgical differences between the techniques, but RAP is more costly.