Oncological and functional results of open, robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does surgical approach and surgical experience matter?

The treatment of prostate cancer has undergone a fundamental change in the last decade. New surgical and nonsurgical minimal invasive methods have evolved. As the methodology of the different treatments is commonly known to urologists, this article focuses on oncological and functional outcome of open retropubic (ORP), trans- or extraperitoneal endoscopical (LRP), and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP), based on personal experience and review of the literature. A MEDLINE search was performed to review the literature on LRP and RALP between 1982 and 2007 with special emphasis on oncological and functional results, technical considerations, comparison of LRP and RALP to ORP, laparoscopic training, historical aspects, and cost-efficiency of the techniques. Based on diligent training and proctoring programs, a continuous dissemination of laparoscopic techniques takes place. There is a trend towards the extraperitoneal access in most of the minimal invasive programs at least in the European community. Mid-term outcomes of LRP and short-term outcomes of RALP achieved equivalence to open surgery with regards to complications, oncologic and functional results. Distinct advantages of LRP include less postoperative pain, lower transfusion rates, shorter convalescence, and better cosmetics. In contrast to RALP, LRP reaches cost-equivalence with open surgery in selected centers. LRP and RALP reproduce the short-term results of open surgery while providing the advantages of a minimal access. Video-assisted teaching improves the transfer of anatomical knowledge and technical knowhow, but the discussion about the longer learning curve for laparoscopy handling remains. The future will show if European centers adopt the use of robots comparable to the United States.