PURPOSE: To directly compare the outcome of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) with robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) performed by a single laparoscopic surgeon with intermediate experience-one who is between a novice and an expert. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive 106 patients with prostate cancer who were treated with radical prostatectomy (62 with LRP and 44 with RALP) were included. The preoperative characteristics, the perioperative surgical outcomes, and the functional outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The mean operative time was longer in the RALP group (371 min vs 308 min, P = 0.00), conceivably because of more nerve-sparing procedures (84% vs 57%). The other perioperative parameters, including the surgical margin, were comparable, except for two major complications (rectourethral fistula and ureteral injury) in the LRP group. The RALP group recovered continence faster than those in the LRP, but the eventual continence rate at 12 months was similar (95% for LRP vs 94.4% for RALP, P = 1.00). The potency rate ≥ 6 months postsurgery was 47.6% in the LRP group and 54.5% in the RALP group (P = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: RALP was beneficial for the earlier recovery of continence, although LRP and RALP had comparable safety and efficacy as minimally invasive surgery for prostate cancer when performed by a laparoscopic surgeon with intermediate experience. Long-term follow-up data are needed for further evaluation of oncologic and functional outcomes for both techniques.
PURPOSE: To directly compare the outcome of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) with robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) performed by a single laparoscopic surgeon with intermediate experience-one who is between a novice and an expert. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive 106 patients with prostate cancer who were treated with radical prostatectomy (62 with LRP and 44 with RALP) were included. The preoperative characteristics, the perioperative surgical outcomes, and the functional outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The mean operative time was longer in the RALP group (371 min vs 308 min, P = 0.00), conceivably because of more nerve-sparing procedures (84% vs 57%). The other perioperative parameters, including the surgical margin, were comparable, except for two major complications (rectourethral fistula and ureteral injury) in the LRP group. The RALP group recovered continence faster than those in the LRP, but the eventual continence rate at 12 months was similar (95% for LRP vs 94.4% for RALP, P = 1.00). The potency rate ≥ 6 months postsurgery was 47.6% in the LRP group and 54.5% in the RALP group (P = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: RALP was beneficial for the earlier recovery of continence, although LRP and RALP had comparable safety and efficacy as minimally invasive surgery for prostate cancer when performed by a laparoscopic surgeon with intermediate experience. Long-term follow-up data are needed for further evaluation of oncologic and functional outcomes for both techniques.