Comparative analysis of surgical outcomes: open versus robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v61.46750Keywords:
Prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy, patient outcomes, open surgery, robotic surgery, long-term follow-upAbstract
Objective: To compare surgical complications, biochemical failure, and mortality rates between open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).
Material and methods: All men undergoing radical prostatectomy (1995–2023) at a single academic hospital were included, and preoperative factors, surgical parameters, complications, biochemical failures, and mortality were collected. Generalized linear models and cause-specific Cox regressions stratified by surgical procedure were used. Cumulative incidences of biochemical failure were estimated with the Aalen-Johansen estimator, accounting for death as a competing risk. Analyses of surgical complications were adjusted for age and lymphadenectomy, while positive surgical margins, biochemical failure, and mortality were adjusted for preoperative PSA, pathological lymph node stage, pT category, tumor percentage, ISUP score, age, and year of surgery.
Results: A total of 3,477 men were included (ORP: 1,759; RARP: 1,718). RARP was associated with reduced odds of in-hospital complications (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11–0.74). RARP was associated with a reduced risk of biochemical failure compared to ORP (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.29–0.93). No other outcomes or mortality rates differed significantly.
Conclusion: RARP was superior in terms of complications and non-inferior for oncological outcomes compared to ORP at our center. Although the only randomized trial yet, has not proven any significant improvement in long-term cancer control comparing the open versus robotic approach, RARP seems to have replaced ORP as the gold standard for surgical treatment of localized prostate cancer. However, the overall benefit of RARP in the surgical evolution remains elusive.
Downloads
References
Chandrasekar T, Tilki D. Robotic-assisted vs. open radical prostatectomy: an update to the never-ending debate. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7(Suppl 1):S120–S123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.12.20
Howard JM. Robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy – is the jury still out? JAMA Netwo Open. 2021;4:9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.20693
Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet. 2016;388(10049):1057–1066. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30592-X
Çolakoğlu Y, Ekşi M, Özlü DN, et al. Comparison of oncological and functional results of robotic and open perineal radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol. 2024;31(9):994–1000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.15500
Carlsson S, Nilsson AE, Schumacher MC, et al. Surgery-related Complications in 1253 Robot-assisted and 485 Open Retropubic Radical Prostatectomies at the Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden. Urology. 2010;75(5):1092–1097. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2009.09.075
Nahas WC, Rodrigues GJ, Rodrigues Gonçalves FA, et al. Perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy: a randomized clinical trial. J Urol. 2024;212(1):32–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003967
Baboudjian M, Grabia A, Barret E, et al. Real-life perioperative outcomes of radical prostatectomy using the french national registry: a plea for promotion of centralized care and access to minimally invasive approaches. Eur Urol Oncol. 2024;7(3):316–318. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2023.10.006
Ambrosini F, Knipper S, Tilki D, et al. Robot-assisted vs open retropubic radical prostatectomy: a propensity score-matched comparative analysis based on 15 years and 18,805 patients. World J Urol. 2024;42(1):1–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-04824-6
Simsir A, Kizilay F, Aliyev B, et al. Comparison of robotic and open radical prostatectomy: initial experience of a single surgeon. Pak J Med Sci. 2021;37(1):167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.37.1.2719
Haese A, Knipper S, Isbarn H, et al. A comparative study of robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy in 10 790 men treated by highly trained surgeons for both procedures. BJU Int. 2019;123(6):1031–1040. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14760
D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Bruce Malkowicz S, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Am Med Assoc. 1998;280(11):969–974. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.11.969
Van Leenders GJLH, Van Der Kwast TH, Grignon DJ, et al. The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2020;44(8):e87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000001497
Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29(9):1228–1242. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pas.0000173646.99337.b1
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
StroombergHV, Larsen SB, Lanthén GS, et al. Danish Prostate Registry (DanProst) – an updated version of the Danish Prostate Cancer Registry, methodology, and early results. J Med Syst. 2023;47(1):98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-023-01991-8
Martin AD, Nunez RN, Andrews JR, et al. Outpatient prostatectomy: too much too soon or just what the patient ordered. Urology. 2010;75(2):421–424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2009.08.085
Banapour P, Elliott P, Jabaji R, et al. Safety and feasibility of outpatient robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Robot Surg. 2019;13(2):261–265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-018-0848-8
Fossati N, Willemse PPM, Van den Broeck T, et al. The benefits and harms of different extents of lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2017; 72(1):84–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.12.003
Briganti A, Chun FKH, Salonia A, et al. Complications and other surgical outcomes associated with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2006;50(5):1006–1013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.08.015
Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R, et al. Is a limited lymph node dissection an adequate staging procedure for prostate cancer? J Urol. 2002;168(2):514–518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64670-8
Lestingi JFP, Guglielmetti GB, Trinh QD, et al. Extended versus limited pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: early oncological outcomes from a randomized phase 3 trial. Eur Urol. 2021;79(5):595–604. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.11.040
Olsen RG, Rich WB, Brasso K, et al. Long-term oncological outcomes of pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy. Scand J Urol. 2026;61:1–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v61.45236
Lantz A, Bock D, Akre O, et al. Functional and oncological outcomes after open versus robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer: 8-year follow-up. Eur Urol. 2021;80(5):650–660. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2021.07.025
Du Y, Long Q, Guan B, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is more beneficial for prostate cancer patients: a system review and meta-analysis. Med Sci Monit. 2018;24:272–287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.907092
Orrason AW, Scilipoti P, Garmo H, et al. Improved adherence to prostate cancer guidelines concomitant with public reporting. Nationwide population-based study. Scand J Urol. 2025;60:50–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v60.43107
Stroomberg HV, Friberg AS, Helgstrand JT, et al. The impact of positive surgical margins on salvage radiation or androgen deprivation therapy following radical prostatectomy – a nationwide study. Acta Oncol (Madr). 2021;60(5):620–626. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2021.1898047
Compérat E, Camparo P, Srigley J, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Ann Pathol. 2013;33(3):155–161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annpat.2013.04.017
Swindle PW, Kattan MW, Scardino PT. Markers and meaning of primary treatment failure. Urol Clin North Am. 2003;30(2):377–401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0094-0143(02)00176-3
Gongora M, Stranne J, Johansson E, et al. Characteristics of patients in SPCG-15 – a randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with primary radiotherapy plus androgen deprivation therapy in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;41:63–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2022.04.013
Childers CP, Maggard-Gibbons M. Estimation of the acquisition and operating costs for robotic surgery. JAMA. 2018;320(8):835. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.9219
Bolenz C, Gupta A, Hotze T, et al. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2010;57(3):453–458. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.11.008
Labban M, Dasgupta P, Song C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer in the UK Key Points + Invited Commentary + Supplemental content. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(4):225740. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.5740
Hyldgard VB, Laursen KR, Poulsen J, et al. Robot-assisted surgery in a broader healthcare perspective: a difference-in-difference-based cost analysis of a national prostatectomy cohort. BMJ Open. 2017;7(7):e015580. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015580
Marcus HJ, Ramirez PT, Khan DZ, et al. The IDEAL framework for surgical robotics: development, comparative evaluation and long-term monitoring. Nat Med. 2024;30:61-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-023-02732-7
Wedde TB, Hagen MS, Vatne KM, et al. Patient-reported long-term sexual morbidity in prostate cancer survivors treated with external beam radiation therapy alone or combined with high-dose-rate brachytherapy. Scand J Urol. 2025;60:14–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v60.42165
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Rikke Groth Olsen, Klaus Brasso, Andreas Røder, Lars Konge, Flemming Bjerrum, Hein Vincent Stroomberg
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
As from Volume 59 (2024) all published articles, unless otherwise specified, are published under CC-BY license, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, with the condition of proper attribution to the original work.
