OBJECTIVE: To compare preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables at 1, 6, and 12 months after laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP), robotic simple prostatectomy (RSP), and intrafascial robotic simple prostatectomy (IF-RSP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2003 to November 2014, 315 simple prostatectomies were performed using three techniques, LSP, RSP, and IF-RSP; of the patients who underwent these procedures, 236 met the inclusion criteria for this study. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference (SSD) was found in preoperative or perioperative variables. Of the postoperative variables that were analyzed, an SSD (p > 0.01) in prostate-specific antigen levels was found, with levels of 0.07 ± 1.1 ng/mL following IF-RSP, and the detection rate of prostate adenocarcinoma (26%) and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HG-PIN; 12%) was higher for IF-RSP. We also found that lower International Prostate Symptom Scores (IPSS) were associated with LSP, at 4.8 ± 3.2. Erectile function was reduced in IF-RSP patients in the first 6 months after surgery but was similar in all patient groups at 12 months after surgery; continence and other measured parameters were also similar at 12 months for all three techniques. CONCLUSION: The IF-RSP technique is safe and effective, with results at 1-year follow-up for continence, IPSS, and Sexual Health Inventory for Men scores similar to those for the LSP and RSP techniques. IF-RSP also offers the advantages that it does not require postoperative irrigation, has an increased ability to detect prostate cancer (CA) and HG-PIN, and avoids the risk of future cancer and subsequent reintervention for possible new prostate growth.
OBJECTIVE: To compare preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables at 1, 6, and 12 months after laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP), robotic simple prostatectomy (RSP), and intrafascial robotic simple prostatectomy (IF-RSP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2003 to November 2014, 315 simple prostatectomies were performed using three techniques, LSP, RSP, and IF-RSP; of the patients who underwent these procedures, 236 met the inclusion criteria for this study. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference (SSD) was found in preoperative or perioperative variables. Of the postoperative variables that were analyzed, an SSD (p > 0.01) in prostate-specific antigen levels was found, with levels of 0.07 ± 1.1 ng/mL following IF-RSP, and the detection rate of prostate adenocarcinoma (26%) and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HG-PIN; 12%) was higher for IF-RSP. We also found that lower International Prostate Symptom Scores (IPSS) were associated with LSP, at 4.8 ± 3.2. Erectile function was reduced in IF-RSP patients in the first 6 months after surgery but was similar in all patient groups at 12 months after surgery; continence and other measured parameters were also similar at 12 months for all three techniques. CONCLUSION: The IF-RSP technique is safe and effective, with results at 1-year follow-up for continence, IPSS, and Sexual Health Inventory for Men scores similar to those for the LSP and RSP techniques. IF-RSP also offers the advantages that it does not require postoperative irrigation, has an increased ability to detect prostate cancer (CA) and HG-PIN, and avoids the risk of future cancer and subsequent reintervention for possible new prostate growth.