Extraperitoneal Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Indications, Technique and Outcomes

Extraperitoneal Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy in Continuous Spinal Anesthesia: A New Approach to an Established Technique

Background and Objectives: To prove the feasibility of continuous spinal extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (cseRALP) in order to expand the pool of eligible patients. Materials and Methods: According to IDEAL guidelines, a consecutive cohort of patients who underwent cseRALP was enrolled. Pre-, intra-, and post-operative data were collected, with particular focus on safety and oncological outcomes. Results: A total of three patients underwent this technique, with no intra- or post-operative medical complications. Only a grade 1 Clavien-Dindo complication was reported, small urinary leakage treated with an indwelling catheter. Oncological and functional results at month 3 were satisfactory, with no recurrence and no stress incontinence. Conclusions: cseRALP seems to be feasible and safe; further trials are mandatory.

Urethra-preserving and dorsal capsule fenestration with robot-assisted simple prostatectomy for severe LUTS in small prostate: a case report

Background

Small prostates (volume <30 ml) induce bladder outlet obstruction with pathophysiological changes distinct from those associated with large prostates. Treatment options often include transurethral incision of the prostate (TUIP) or transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Existing treatments have issues with high recurrence and complication rates. Therefore, we aim to explore a new minimally invasive surgical approach for patients with severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and a small prostate.

Methods

A patient with severe LUTS and a small prostate was admitted to the Department of Urology at the Second Hospital of Dalian Medical University. The patient had no median lobe but presented with multiple bladder stones. Relevant data (IPSS score, urine flow rate, operation time, hemoglobin drop, catheterization time, hospitalization time, residual urine) were collected before and after surgery to assess the safety and efficiency.

Results

The patient was 72 years old with a prostate volume of 22.14 ml, a preoperative IPSS score of 28, PSA of 0.314 ng/ml, maximum urine flow rate of 3.5 ml/s, and a prostate MRI PI-RADS score of 2. The patient underwent robot-assisted cystolithotomy, urethra-preserving prostatectomy and dorsal capsule fenestration. The surgery lasted 105 min, with a postoperative hemoglobin drop of 3 g/L. There was no continuous bladder irrigation postoperatively, and the catheter was removed after 10 days. The patient was hospitalized for 4 days and followed up for 24 months. At 6 months postoperative, the patient had an IPSS score of 6, a QoL score of 1, a urine flow rate of 18 ml/s, and residual urine of 8 ml, with nocturia occurring 1-2 times. At 24 months postoperative, the patient had an IPSS score of 7, a QoL score of 1, a urine flow rate of 21 ml/s, and residual urine of 15 ml, with nocturia occurring 1 time.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted urethra-preserving prostatectomy and dorsal capsule fenestration is a promising alternative treatment for patient with severe LUTS due to a small prostate in both long-term safety and efficacy. Further large-sample controlled studies are needed for additional evaluation and validation.

State of art of robotic prostatectomy: the way we do it in Catalonia, Spain

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (PLAR) seems to improve functional outcomes, however there is not a consensus of a standard procedure. The aim of this study was to identify the PLAR "state of art" in Catalonia, Spain.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a cross-sectional survey-based study conducted among urologists across Catalonia, Spain. The survey was distributed through online platforms and the professional urology society. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata software, v20.

RESULTS

59 urologists completed the survey, revealing PLAR as the most commonly used technique (79.7%). Most urologist (70%) create the pneumoperitoneum using a controlled incision with direct access and 78.3% use the Airseal technology. The intraperitoneal approach is performed in >90% of cases. Endopelvic fascia preservation is not routinely performed. 34.5% of the survey not perform the dorsal vein complex suture. All preserves the bladder neck when oncologically safe. Nerve-vascular bundles bleeding control is performed using standard coagulation or suturing. 34% performed posterior reconstruction. Only use hemostatic devices when evident bleeding and 70% does not routinely left a drainage. Multivariable analysis showed that center volume had a significant independent association with dorsal venous complex suturing (OR 0.073, 95%CI 0.07-0.826), nerve-vascular bundles suturing hemostasis (OR 11.67, 95%CI 1.07-127.60) and endopelvic fascia preservation (OR 13.64, 95%CI 1.087-201.27), but there was no correlation with time the bladder catheter or days hospitalized.

CONCLUSIONS

The study provides an overview of the state of PLAR in Catalonia, Spain, showing significant variability and reflecting a commitment to advancing surgical technology and patient care.

Navigating Now and Next: Recent Advances and Future Horizons in Robotic Radical Prostatectomy

Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has become the leading approach for radical prostatectomy driven by innovations aimed at improving functional and oncological outcomes. The initial advancement in this field was transperitoneal multiport robotics, which has since undergone numerous technical modifications. These enhancements include the development of extraperitoneal, transperineal, and transvesical approaches to radical prostatectomy, greatly facilitated by the advent of the Single Port (SP) robot. This review offers a comprehensive analysis of these evolving techniques and their impact on RARP. Additionally, we explore the transformative role of artificial intelligence (AI) in digitizing robotic prostatectomy. AI advancements, particularly in automated surgical video analysis using computer vision technology, are unprecedented in their scope. These developments hold the potential to revolutionize surgeon feedback and assessment and transform surgical documentation, and they could lay the groundwork for real-time AI decision support during surgical procedures in the future. Furthermore, we discuss future robotic platforms and their potential to further enhance the field of RARP. Overall, the field of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer has been an incubator of innovation over the last two decades. This review focuses on some recent developments in robotic prostatectomy, provides an overview of the next frontier in AI innovation during prostate cancer surgery, and highlights novel robotic platforms that may play an increasing role in prostate cancer surgery in the future.

Perioperative, function, and positive surgical margin in extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal single port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Extraperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches are two common modalities in single-port (SP) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), but differences in safety and efficacy between the two remain controversial. This study aimed to compare the perioperative, function, and positive surgical margin of extraperitoneal with transperitoneal approaches SP-RARP.

METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, this study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD 42023409667). We systematically searched databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies published up to February 2023. Stata 15.1 software was used to analyze and calculate the risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD).

RESULTS

A total of five studies, including 833 participants, were included in this study. The SP-TPRP group is superior to the SP-EPRP group in intraoperative blood loss (WMD: - 43.92, 95% CI - 69.81, - 18.04; p = 0.001), the incidence of postoperative Clavien-Dindo grade II and above complications (RR: 0.55, 95% CI - 0.31, 0.99; p = 0.04), and postoperative continence recovery (RR: 1.23, 95% CI 1.05, 1.45; p = 0.04). Conversely, the hospitalization stays (WMD: 7.88, 95% confidence interval: 0.65, 15.1; p = 0.03) for the SP-EPRP group was shorter than that of the SP-TPRP group. However, there was no significant difference in operation time, postoperative pain score, total incidence of postoperative complications, and positive surgical margin (PSM) rates between the two groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that both extraperitoneal and extraperitoneal SP-RARP approaches are safe and effective. SP-TPRP is superior to SP-EPRP in postoperative blood loss, the incidence of postoperative Clavien-Dindo grade II and above complications, and postoperative continence recovery, but it is accompanied by longer hospital stays.

Extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with the Hugo™ RAS system: initial experience of a tertiary center with a high background in extraperitoneal laparoscopy surgery

PURPOSE

The Hugo™ RAS system is a novel robotic platform with innovative features. However, there are currently no available data on extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) performed using this system. The objective of this study is to describe the surgical setup and assess the safety and feasibility of the extraperitoneal approach in robotic radical prostatectomy with the Hugo™ RAS system.

METHODS

Sixteen consecutive patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer underwent extraperitoneal RARP ± lymph node dissection at our institution, between March and May 2023. All RARP procedures were performed extraperitoneal with a modular four-arm configuration. The focus was to describe the operative room setup, trocar placement, tilt and docking angles and evaluate the safety and feasibility of this approach with this robotic platform. Secondary outcomes recorded included, total operative time, console time, estimated bleeding, intra- and postoperative complications, and length of stay after surgery. A descriptive analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

We report on the first sixteen cases of extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy performed with the new Hugo™ RAS system. All procedures were completed, without the need for conversion or placement of additional ports. No intraoperative complications or major technical failures that would prevent the completion of surgery were recorded. The median operative time was 211 min (IQR 180-277), and the median console time was 152 min (IQR 119-196). The mean docking time was 4.6 min (IQR 4.1-5.2). The median estimated blood loss and the median time to remove the vesical catheter were 200 mL (IQR 150-400) and 8 days (IQR 7-8), respectively. The median length of stay was 2 days (IQR 2-2). Only one minor complication was registered in the first 30 days.

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence of the safety and feasibility of the extraperitoneal approach in RARP with the Hugo™ RAS system. The description of the surgical setup in terms of trocar placement, arm-cart disposition, tilt and docking angles offers valuable information for surgeons interested in adopting this surgical approach with the Hugo™ RAS platform.

Extraperitoneal tissue retraction technique: An effective assistant of extraperitoneal pure single-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy with the da Vinci Si surgical system

Objective

The limitations of tissue retraction and the amount of surgical working space have a great impact on extraperitoneal single-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (sp-RARP) with the multiport robotic surgical system. We used an extraperitoneal tissue retraction technique to achieve tissue exposure and working space expansion. This study evaluated the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of the extraperitoneal tissue retraction technique in extraperitoneal pure sp-RARP with the da Vinci Si surgical system.

Methods

Data from 42 patients were analyzed retrospectively from December 2018 to February 2020. The extraperitoneal tissue retraction technique was not used in 20 patients (group I) and was used in 22 patients (group II). Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected. The oncological and functional data during late follow-up were recorded.

Results

All patients successfully underwent extraperitoneal pure sp-RARP. No patients required conversion to a multiport surgery or placement of additional assistant ports. The two groups were similar regarding baseline features. The median operation time in group I was significantly longer than that in group II (P &lt; 0.001). The estimated blood loss volume in group I was significantly higher than that in group II (P &lt; 0.001). There were no serious complications in either group. There were four cases of peritoneal tears in group I and none in group II (P = 0.043). The surgical margin and lymph nodes were negative in both groups. The oncological and functional outcomes were similar between the two groups 6 months after the procedure.

Conclusions

The extraperitoneal tissue retraction technique is safe and feasible. The technique promotes tissue exposure and expands the surgical working space, which is important for achieving extraperitoneal pure sp-RARP with the da Vinci Si surgical system, especially for beginners. The short-term oncological and functional outcomes were within acceptable ranges. The long-term effects of this technique need further evaluation.

Ten-years outcome analysis in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated by radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy

Purpose

Since there was no consensus on treatment options for localized prostate cancer, we performed a retrospective study to compare the long-term survival benefit of radiotherapy (RT) versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in Taiwan.

Methods

218 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated between 2008 and 2017 (64 with LRP and 154 with RT) were enrolled in this study. The outcomes of RT and LRP were assessed after patients were stratified according to Gleason score, stage, and risk group. Crude survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, and metastasis-free survival were evaluated using the log-rank test.

Results

The 5-year crude survival rate was 93.3% in the LRP group and 59.3% in the RT group. A significant survival benefit was found in the LRP group compared with the RT group (p = 0.004). Furthermore, significant differences were found in disease-specific survival (93.3% vs. 64.7%, p = 0.022) and metastasis-free survival (48% vs. 40.2%, p = 0.045) between the LRP and RT groups.

Conclusions

Men with localized prostate cancer treated initially with LRP had a lower risk of prostate cancer-specific death and metastases compared with those treated with RT.

Super-veil nerve-sparing extraperitoneal pure single-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy on da Vinci Si robotic system

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the safety profile and short-term outcome of super-veil nerve-sparing extraperitoneal single-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (espRARP) on da Vinci Si platform.

METHODS

From December 2018 to March 2021, 106 consecutive patients with treatment-naive prostate cancer were prospectively included. espRARP was performed on da Vinci Si surgical platform. Operative time, estimated blood loss, Clavien-Dindo complication classification, continence, potency recovery, quality-of-life scores, and postoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were documented.

RESULTS

Patients aged 52-79 years (mean ± SD, 64.8 ± 6.15 yrs), with a median PSA of 9.2 ng/ml (IQR: 6.70, 16.83) and median prostate volume of 31.9 ml (IQR: 30.01, 38.54). 95.28% (101/106) were clinically localized. All patients underwent espRARP successfully with no open conversions. Operative time was 94.2 ± 30.26 min with an estimated blood loss of 68.5 ml (range, 50-120 ml). No Grade III complications or above were documented. Positive surgical margin was 17.9% (19/106). Median pain score at discharge was 0 (IQR: 0, 1.75) without use of opioid narcotics. Postoperative length of stay was 3 days (IQR: 1, 3), in which 28 patients were discharged within 24 h. Instant, 1-, 3-, and 6 month continence recovery was 18.9, 45.3, 79.2, 93.4, and 96.4%, respectively. Of the 43 patients who received nerve-sparing procedures, 13 (30.23%) resumed potency 6 months postoperatively. 12 month biochemical recurrence-free survival was 92.77% (77/83).

CONCLUSIONS

Extraperitoneal single-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy is a safe and feasible technique. Combined with super-veil nerve-sparing procedures, it may provide satisfactory outcome in short-term functional recovery.

Extraperitoneal Single-Port Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is currently the standard minimally invasive procedure for the surgical management of localized prostate cancer. It has been shown that the minimally invasive robotic approach offers comparable oncologic and functional outcomes with potential advantages, including decreased blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and recovery period when compared with open surgery. Generally, the transperitoneal RARP approach is the most commonly performed among robotic surgeons, owing to its wider space and early adoption. However, similar oncologic outcomes have been reported with the extraperitoneal approach. Owing to its perceived technical difficulty, extraperitoneal RARP is less adopted nowadays. This approach, however, has its merits particularly in cases where intraperitoneal access can be problematic with extensive adhesions from previous surgeries. Also, extraperitoneal approach allows for minimal bowel manipulation, less steep Trendelenburg positioning, and less pneumoperitoneum, which reflect on early recovery of bowel function after RARP. Both transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches can be performed using either the conventional multiport robotic system or the more recent single-port (SP) robotic system. With respect to extraperitoneal RARP, there has been an increased adoption of the SP system, with purported advantages such as better cosmesis, less postoperative analgesic and opioid requirements, and shorter duration of hospital stay. Herein, we describe the technical steps relevant to extraperitoneal single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, and elaborate on the clinical outcomes reported in the literature.

Recommendations on robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a Brazilian experts' consensus

Radical prostatectomy is a commonly adopted treatment for localized/locally advanced prostate cancer in men with a life expectancy of ten years or more. Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is comparable to open radical prostatectomy on cancer control and complication rates; however, new evidence suggests that RARP may have better functional outcomes, especially with respect to urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Some of the surgical steps of RARP are not adequately described in published literature and, as such, may have an impact on the final outcomes of the procedure. We organized a Brazilian experts' panel to evaluate best practices in RARP. The confection of the recommendations broadly involved: selection of the experts; establishment of working groups; systematic review of the literature and elaboration of a questionnaire; and construction of the final text with the approval of all participants. The participants reviewed the publications in English from December 2019 to February 2020. A one-round Delphi technique was employed in 188 questions. Five reviewers worked on the final recommendations using consensual and non-consensual questions. We found 59.9% of questions with greater than 70% agreement that were considered consensual. Non-consensual questions were reported according to the responses. The recommendations were based on evidence-based literature and individual perceptions adapted to the Brazilian reality, although some issues remain controversial. We believe that these recommendations may help urologists involved in RARP and hope that future discussions on this surgical procedure may evolve over the ensuing years.

Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy on postoperative hepatic and renal function

Background

In this retrospective study, we evaluated the effect of two approaches of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). The first approach was pneumoperitoneum via transperitoneal (TP-RALP), and the second approach was extraperitoneal (EP-RALP) on visceral function. We aimed to provide clinical evidence for the perioperative safety with RALP and to help the surgical team choose an appropriate approach for those with hepatic or renal insufficiency.

Methods

One hundred and fifty-seven eligible prostate cancer patients from 2015 to 2019 were included in this study. The postoperative related laboratory tests were compared between transperitoneal and extraperitoneal. The primary endpoint was hepatic and renal function. We also evaluate the intraoperative amount of bleeding, the length of postoperative hospital stays, the occurrence of postoperative complications (lymphatic leakage, bleeding, and infection), and the prostate-specific antigen (PSA).

Results

Postoperative total bilirubin and bound bilirubin in both groups were significantly increased, while total protein, albumin, globulin, urea, and uric acid were significantly decreased (P<0.05). The total protein, albumin, and globulin are significantly higher in the EP-RALP group than in the TP-RALP group (P<0.05) postoperatively. There are no statistical differences in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and creatinine clearance (CCR) between these two groups, postoperatively.

Conclusions

RALP had a significant effect on hepatic function after both TP-RALP and EP-RALP approaches, while the latter showed a lesser extent. Our results suggested that pneumoperitoneal pathways have significant effects on protein consumption. Thus, we should require a more cautious choice of surgical approaches when it comes to patients with impaired hepatic function or under risk of hepatic malfunction.

Contemporary Techniques of Prostate Dissection for Robot-assisted Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Over the years, several techniques for performing robot-assisted prostatectomy have been implemented in an effort to achieve optimal oncological and functional outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To provide an evidence-based description and video-based illustration of currently available dissection techniques for robotic prostatectomy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A literature search was performed to retrieve articles describing different surgical approaches and techniques for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and to analyze data supporting their use. Video material was provided by experts in the field to illustrate these approaches and techniques.

SURGICAL PROCEDURE

Multiple surgical approaches are available: extraperitoneal, transvesical, transperitoneal posterior, transperitoneal anterior, Retzius sparing, and transperineal. Surgical techniques for prostatic dissection sensu strictu are the following: omission of the endopelvic fascia dissection, bladder neck preservation, incremental nerve sparing by means of an antegrade or retrograde approach, and preservation of the puboprostatic ligaments and dorsal venous complex. Recently, techniques for total or partial prostatectomy have been described.

MEASUREMENTS

Different surgical approaches and techniques for robotic prostatectomy have been analyzed.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Two randomized controlled trials evaluating the extraperitoneal versus the transperitoneal approach have demonstrated similar results. Level I evidence on the Retzius-sparing approach demonstrated earlier return to continence than the traditional anterior approach. The question whether Retzius-sparing RARP is associated with a higher rate of positive surgical margins is still open due to the intrinsic bias in terms of surgical expertise in the available comparative studies. This technique also offers an advantage in patients who have received kidney transplantation. Retrospective evidence suggests that the more the anatomical dissection (eg., more periprostatic tissue is preserved), the better the functional outcome in terms of continence. Yet, two randomized controlled trials evaluating the different techniques of dissection have so far been produced. Partial prostatectomies should not be offered outside clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Several techniques and approaches are available for prostate dissection during RARP. While the Retzius-sparing approach seems to provide earlier return to continence than the traditional anterior transperitoneal approach, no technique has been proved to be superior to other(s) in terms of long-term outcomes in randomized studies.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We have summarized available approaches for the surgical treatment of prostate cancer. Specifically, we described the different techniques that can be adopted for the surgical removal of the prostate using robotic technology.

A comparison of perioperative outcome between robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience of a single institution

PURPOSE

To compare perioperative and pathological results in different approaches of robotic or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 206 patients diagnosed with pros¬tate cancer (PC) from June 2016 to October 2017 in the First Affiliated Hospital of Nan¬jing Medical University. A total of 132 cases underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RLRP) including 54 patients on transperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (Tp-RLRP) and 78 on extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (Ep-RLRP). Meanwhile, 74 patients performed with extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (Ep-LPR) were also included. Peri¬operative and pathological data were compared among these groups.

RESULTS

All operations were completed without conversion. There was no signifi¬cant difference in basic and pathological characteristics of patients between each two groups. In Tp-RLRP vs. Ep-RLRP: Significant differences were found in the comparison in to¬tal operation time [235.98 ± 59.16 vs. 180.45 ± 50.27 min, P = 0.00], estimated blood loss (EBL) [399.07 ± 519.57 vs. 254.49 ± 308.05 mL, P = 0.0473], postoperative pelvic drainage time [5.37 ± 2.33 vs. 4.24 ± 3.08 d, P = 0.0237] and postoperative length of stay [8.15 ± 3.30 vs. 6.49 ± 3.49 d, P = 0.0068] while no significant differences were detected in other variables. In Ep-RLRP vs. Ep-LPR: Longer total operation time was observed in Ep-RLRP when compared to Ep-LPR [180.45 ± 50.27 vs. 143.80 ± 33.13 min, P = 0.000]. No significant differences were observed in other variables.

CONCLUSION

In RLRP, Ep-RLRP was proved a safe and effective approach based on the perioperative results compared to Tp-RLRP. Ep-RLRP and Ep-LPR provides equivalent perioperative and pathological outcomes.

Risk factors, complications and management of lymphocele formation after radical prostatectomy: A mini-review

Lymphocele formation is the most common adverse event of pelvic lymphadenectomy during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Previous studies failed to favor one surgical technique over the other in terms of minimizing its rate. Data on risk factors for its development are still conflicting and warranting further research. In this mini-review, we aimed to scrutinize available evidence on these aspects and outline current achievements in lymphocele prevention approaches.

Review of optimal techniques for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy has been rapidly adopted and is now the standard of care in the surgical management of prostate cancer. Since the initial description in 2001, the technique has evolved to optimize oncological functional outcomes. Herein, we review key techniques for the robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

RECENT FINDINGS

With the current influx of new technology such as focal therapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy and prostate-sparing treatments, there is greater emphasis on maximizing outcomes of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. The evidence-based techniques of optimizing oncological outcomes including the lymph node dissection and improving cancer control through minimizing positive surgical margins are reviewed. Improvements in functional recovery has also been seen with technical modifications such as nerve sparing, preservation of the urethral support structures and the bladder neck and the urethra-vesical reconstruction.

SUMMARY

Robotic prostatectomy has demonstrated adequate long-term oncologic success and satisfactory functional recovery. As technology and techniques in robotic-assisted surgery evolve, surgeons will continue to optimize techniques to maximize functional outcome recovery and cancer control. Further studies are actively being conducted to provide level one evidence in multiple aspects of the robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.