SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

vol.60 issue4Radical robot prostatectomy: oncological outcomesRobotic radical cystectomy author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand




Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO
  • On index processSimilars in Google


Archivos Españoles de Urología (Ed. impresa)

Print version ISSN 0004-0614


CACERES, Felipe et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus robotic. Arch. Esp. Urol. [online]. 2007, vol.60, n.4, pp.430-438. ISSN 0004-0614.

Objectives: Laparoscopic surgery has demonstrated that it is a good alternative to conventional surgery for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Robotic surgery could be a therapeutic option. We try to evaluate both techniques, analyzing a series of parameters that allow us to describe the advantages and disadvantages of both techniques. Methods: We performed a MEDLINE search and reviewed the main series of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic radical prostatectomy (RRP). The parameters analyzed for each techniques were: oncological results, functional results, blood loss, transfusion rates, surgical times, complications rates, learning curve and cost. Results: Both techniques have the advantage of being minimally invasive, which results in better recovery and aesthetic results. The learning curve of the robotic prostatectomy is shorter, 10 to 20 cases in comparison with 50 to 60 for the LRP. Cost analysis is more favourable for LRP, with a single-use instrument expenditure of 533 dollars per patient in comparison with 1.705 dollars with the robot. The cost of the robot is 1.200.000 dollars plus 100.000 dollars of annual maintenance (1). Operative time was 182 minutes [141-250] for robotic surgery and 234 min. [151-453] for LRP. Within the same institution, like Montsouris, times are very similar: 155 min. for the RRP and 181 min. for the (LRP). Mean operative blood loss was 234 ml [75-500] for the robot and 482 ml [185-859] for the LRP, depending on the technique employed and the institution. Complication rate is similar for both techniques. The percentage of positive surgical margins is 20.6% for LRP and 19.24% for RRP. Long term results on the biochemical PSA recurrence cannot be given due to the short life of both techniques. Continence rates are 56-100% for LRP and 70-98% for RRP. Potency rates are 25-82% for LRP and 79-100% for RRP. It is difficult to evaluate hospital stay because it depends on the politics of the medical institutions; nevertheless, it seems there are not significant differences between techniques. Conclusions: Intraoperative and postoperative advantages are comparable with both techniques. Robotic prostatectomy has a shorter learning curve. Prospective studies with longer follow-up are necessary to compare oncological and functional results. The cost of LRP is lower than RRP.

Keywords : Radical prostatectomy; Laparoscopy; Robotics.

        · abstract in Spanish     · text in Spanish     · Spanish ( pdf )


Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License