Short-term results after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy

Anna Wallerstedt*, Stavros I. Tyritzis, Thordis Thorsteinsdottir, Stefan Carlsson, Johan Stranne, Ove Gustafsson, Jonas Hugosson, Anders Bjartell, Ulrica Wilderäng, N. Peter Wiklund, Gunnar Steineck, Eva Haglind

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

70 Citations (Scopus)


Background Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy has become a widespread technique despite a lack of randomised trials showing its superiority over open radical prostatectomy. Objective To compare in-hospital characteristics and patient-reported outcomes at 3 mo between robot-assisted laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. Design, setting, and participants A prospective, controlled trial was performed of all men who underwent radical prostatectomy at 14 participating centres. Validated patient questionnaires were collected at baseline and after 3 mo by independent health-care researchers. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The difference in outcome between the two treatment groups were analysed using logistic regression analysis, with adjustment for identified confounders. Results and limitations Questionnaires were received from 2506 (95%) patients. The robot-assisted surgery group had less perioperative bleeding (185 vs 683 ml, p < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (3.3 vs 4.1 d, p < 0.001) than the open surgery group. Operating time was shorter with the open technique (103 vs 175 min, p < 0.001) compared with the robot-assisted technique. Reoperation during initial hospital stay was more frequent after open surgery after adjusting for tumour characteristics and lymph node dissection (1.6% vs 0.7%, odds ratio [OR] 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI 95%] 0.11-0.90). Men who underwent open surgery were more likely to seek healthcare (for one or more of 22 specified disorders identified prestudy) compared to men in the robot-assisted surgery group (p = 0.03). It was more common to seek healthcare for cardiovascular reasons in the open surgery group than in the robot-assisted surgery group, after adjusting for nontumour and tumour-specific confounders, (7.9% vs 5.8%, OR 0.63, CI 95% 0.42-0.94). The readmittance rate was not statistically different between the groups. A limitation of the study is the lack of a standardised tool for the assessment of the adverse events. Conclusions This large prospective study confirms previous findings that robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is a safe procedure with some short-term advantages compared to open surgery. Whether these advantages also include long-term morbidity and are related to acceptable costs remain to be studied. Patient summary We compare patient-reported outcomes between two commonly used surgical techniques. Our results show that the choice of surgical technique may influence short-term outcomes.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)660-670
Number of pages11
JournalEuropean Urology
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2015

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2014 European Association of Urology. All rights reserved.

Other keywords

  • Complications
  • Open
  • Radical prostatectomy
  • Robot-assisted
  • Short-term results


Dive into the research topics of 'Short-term results after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this