We aimed to compare results between patients with early- stage prostate cancer who underwent robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy. We examined preoperative and postoperative data, early and late complications, and analysed oncological and functional outcomes (continence and erectile function) during follow-up.
We studied the data of 123 patients with localized prostate cancer, operated with nerve-sparing retropubic radical prostatectomy, divided into two groups. Group 1 included 70 patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Group 2 included 53 patients, on whom open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) was performed. We compared preoperative data, complications rate, oncological, and functional outcome (continence and erectile function) during the follow-up period.
Operative time was significantly lower in the RRP group. Blood loss and earlier removal of the urinary catheter were significantly lower in the RARP group. The percentage of significant postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo III-IV) was 0% in the first group and 3% in the second group. During follow-up, the improvement in the functional outcome - continence and erectile function was significantly better in the robot-assisted surgery patients.
There were statistically significant better functional outcomes in patients operated on using the robot-assisted technique. The operating time was shorter in the classic radical prostatectomy. The application of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy may help achieve earlier recovery, as compared to open radical prostatectomy.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
1. Georgiev M, Semerdzhiev Y, Kolev M, Yanev K, Dimitrov P, Vassilev V. V4 - Robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomies– current trends. Eur Urol Suppl. 2018 October;17(11):e2620.
2. Georgiev M, Yanev K, Dimitrov P, Vassilev V, Timev A, Semerdzhiev Y, Gergov R, Simeonov P, Panchev P. 34 Head to head comparison of laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy - randomized controlled trial. Eur Urol Suppl. 2015 November;14(8):e1367.
3. Ahlering TE, Woo D,Eichel L, Lee DI, Edwards R, Skarecky DW. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon’s outcomes.Urology. 2004 May;63(5):819-22.
4. Smith JA Jr, Chan RC, Chang SS, Herrell SD, Clark PE, Baumgartner R, Cookson MS.A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy.J Urol. 2007 Dec;178(6):2385-9.
5. Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, Costello A, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Guazzoni G, Menon M, Mottrie A, Patel VR, Van der Poel H, Rosen RC, Tewari AK, Wilson TG, Zattoni F, Montorsi F. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot- assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012 Sep;62(3):418-30.
6. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A, Menon M, Montorsi F, Patel VR, Stolzenburg JU, Van der Poel H, Wilson TG, Zattoni F, Mottrie A. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot- assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012 Sep;62(3):405-17.