This is a follow-up to the previous posting. Please read that first. Following is an editorial by Dr. Michael Blute of the Mayo Clinic urology faculty. He is commenting on a study by Dr. Hu which compared laparascopic and open surgery. I am going to cite the entire article almost verbatim and I have emphasized parts that I feel you should pay special attention to.
Opinion piece, “Radical Prostatectomy by Open or Laparoscopic/Robotic Techniques: An Issue of Surgical Device or Surgical Expertise?”
Department of Urology, College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 26, No 14 (May 10), 2008: pp. 2248-2249
© 2008 American Society of Clinical Oncology.
<snip> Although RARP (robotic surgery) is different from LRP (standard laparascopic surgery), the authors are unable to separate LRP from RARP.
Patient interest in RARP has been the result of a highly successful marketing campaign with resultant consumer demand. Patients have been led to believe that hospital and recovery times are shorter and outcomes are better, but a study has shown this expectation not to be the RARP is simply an alternative method to extract the prostate.
In this study, patients undergoing LRP were found to have shorter lengths of stay (mean, 1.42 days v 4.35 days; P < .001), but were more likely to require salvage therapy (27.8% v 9.1%; P < .001) with radiation therapy plus androgen deprivation therapy for local relapse. Patients who underwent LRP/RARP appeared to have more anastomotic strictures