OBJECTIVES: To compare internally one surgeon's standard open radical prostatectomy (RP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic RP (RLP) results. RLP, like standard laparoscopic RP, ultimately needs to produce similar or improved results compared with standard RP techniques. Little information comparing RLP with standard RP exists. METHODS: As an internal control, we selected the last 60 standard RPs performed by one surgeon (T.A.) before initiating RLPs. For the RLP group, we selected cases 46 to 105 (n = 60) after the learning curve had adequately matured. We compared the clinical characteristics, perioperative results, and early clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The study and control groups had similar clinical characteristics (age, body size, preoperative prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and Gleason score). No statistically significant differences were found between groups for prostate size, pT stage, Gleason score, or margin status (16.7% versus 20%; P = nonsignificant). The RLP group had a statistically significant advantage for estimated blood loss (103 versus 418 mL), postoperative hemoglobin change (1.6 versus 3.3 mg/dL), and hospital stay (1.02 versus 2.2 days). Complete continence (0 pads) at 3 months of follow-up and the rate of postoperative complications were similar for the RLP and RP groups (76% versus 75% and 6.7% versus 10%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We present the results of RLP and RP performed by one surgeon. With only a 100-case experience, RLP had oncologic and urinary outcomes that were at least equal to those after RP. RLP offers the benefits of minimally invasive surgery and does not compromise clinical or pathologic outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: To compare internally one surgeon's standard open radical prostatectomy (RP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic RP (RLP) results. RLP, like standard laparoscopic RP, ultimately needs to produce similar or improved results compared with standard RP techniques. Little information comparing RLP with standard RP exists. METHODS: As an internal control, we selected the last 60 standard RPs performed by one surgeon (T.A.) before initiating RLPs. For the RLP group, we selected cases 46 to 105 (n = 60) after the learning curve had adequately matured. We compared the clinical characteristics, perioperative results, and early clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The study and control groups had similar clinical characteristics (age, body size, preoperative prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and Gleason score). No statistically significant differences were found between groups for prostate size, pT stage, Gleason score, or margin status (16.7% versus 20%; P = nonsignificant). The RLP group had a statistically significant advantage for estimated blood loss (103 versus 418 mL), postoperative hemoglobin change (1.6 versus 3.3 mg/dL), and hospital stay (1.02 versus 2.2 days). Complete continence (0 pads) at 3 months of follow-up and the rate of postoperative complications were similar for the RLP and RP groups (76% versus 75% and 6.7% versus 10%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We present the results of RLP and RP performed by one surgeon. With only a 100-case experience, RLP had oncologic and urinary outcomes that were at least equal to those after RP. RLP offers the benefits of minimally invasive surgery and does not compromise clinical or pathologic outcomes.