Comparison of oncological and functional outcomes of pure versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy performed by a single surgeon

Abstract

Objective. The aim of this study was to compare oncological and functional outcomes of pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) performed by a single surgeon. Material and methods. In total, 327 consecutive patients with prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy (144 with LRP and 183 with RALRP) were enrolled. No significant differences were found in prostate-specific antigen level, biopsy Gleason score, clinical T stage or D'Amico risk stratification between the two groups. The operating time was longer in the LRP group (p < 0.001). The RALRP group patients had significantly lower postoperative pain numerical rating scale (NRS) (p = 0.016) and catheter duration (p < 0.001). There were no differences in pathological Gleason score, pathological T stage or positive surgical margin rate. No differences were found in biochemical recurrence-free survival. Postoperative pad-free continence rates revealed a more rapid recovery in the RALRP group, but rates at 12 months were not significantly different. Multivariate analysis showed that the type of surgery was a strong independent factor to predict early postoperative pad use. Postoperative potency rates were not significantly different at 3, 6 and 12 months in patients who underwent nerve-sparing procedures. Conclusions. LRP and RALRP performed by a single surgeon yielded similar results in terms of safety and oncological outcomes. More favorable outcomes were noted in operating time, pain NRS and catheter duration, as well as urinary continence recovery time. Therefore, RALRP showed more favorable components in terms of postoperative quality of life than LRP.

Key Words::

• laparoscopic surgery
• prostatectomy
• prostatic neoplasms
• robotics.

Declaration of interest : The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.