Real-Life Comparative Analysis of Robotic-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy in a Single Centre Experience

• Published in: Cancers Vol. 16; no. 21; p. 3604
• Main Authors: Salciccia, Stefano, Santarelli, Valerio, Di Pierro, Giovanni Battista, Del Giudice, Francesco, Bevilacqua, Giulio, Di Lascio, Giovanni, Gentilucci, Alessandro, Corvino, Roberta, Brunelli, Valentina, Basile, Greta, Scornajenghi, Carlo Maria, Santodirocco, Lorenzo, Gobbi, Luca, Rosati, Davide, Moriconi, Martina, Panebianco, Valeria, Magliocca, Fabio Massimo, Santini, Daniele, Di Civita, Mattia Alberto, Forte, Flavio, Frisenda, Marco, Franco, Giorgio, Sciarra, Alessandro
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Basel MDPI AG 25.10.2024; MDPI
• Subjects: Biopsy; Clinical medicine; Comparative analysis; Laparoscopic surgery; Laparoscopy; Lymph nodes; Lymphatic system; Medical imaging; Metastasis; Nomograms; Patients; Prostate cancer; Prostatectomy; Radiation therapy; Robotic surgery; Robotics; Statistical analysis; Surgeons; Surgery; Surgical anastomosis
• ISSN: 2072-6694; 2072-6694
• DOI: 10.3390/cancers16213604

Background: The advantage of a robotic-assisted (RARP) over a laparoscopic (LRP) approach in radical prostatectomy (RP) remains to be demonstrated. Aim: The aim of the study is to use a homogeneous population in real life and single primary surgeon surgery to analyze the oncological and functional results based on the type of surgical approach and pathological features. Methods: This is a prospective trial on non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) patients considered after a multidisciplinary decision to conduct a RP, using a RARP or LRP approach. A real-life setting was analyzed at our Urological Departments using homogeneous criteria for the management of PCa cases and a single surgeon experience on 444 cases (284 LRP and 160 RARP). Results: Mean operating time was significantly lower in RARP (153.21 ± 25.1 min) than in LRP (173.33 ± 44.3 min) (p < 0.001). In cases submitted to an extended lymph node dissection (eLND), the mean number of lymph nodes removed was 15.16 ± 7.83 and 19.83 ± 4.78, respectively, in LRP and RARP procedures (p < 0.001), but positive lymph nodes (pN1) were similarly found in 15.8% of LRP patients and 13.6% of RARP patients (p = 0.430). Surgical margins (SM) positivity was not significantly higher in the RARP group (20.0%) when compared to the LRP group (15.9%) (p = 0.145). During the postoperative follow-up, a biochemical recurrence (BCR) was detected in 14.4% and 7.5% of cases in the LRP and RARP group, respectively, (p = 0.014). Better results of PAD tests at 3-month intervals using the RARP approach (mean pad weight 75.57 ± 122 g and 14 ± 42 g, respectively, in LRP and RARP (p < 0.01)) were described. Conclusions: In the comparison between the RARP and LRP approach, a clear advantage of the robotic approach is a significant reduction in operating times, days of hospitalization, and postoperative catheterization compared to laparoscopic surgery. It is not possible to describe any certain oncological advantage both in terms of surgical margins and pathological lymph nodes removed. In RARP cases a reduction to the limit of significance is described in terms of biochemical recurrence. RARP produces a more rapid recovery of urinary continence at 3 months postoperatively without significant advantages in terms of erective potency recovery.