Prospective comparative trial on nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy using a robot-assisted versus laparoscopic technique: expectation versus satisfaction and impact on surgical margins

Introduction The aim of this study was to analyze whether differences exist in a population selected for a nerve-sparing (NS) procedure between robot-assisted (RARP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and whether they can have an impact on surgical margins (SM) status. Material and methods This is a single center prospective comparative trial on prostate cancer patients submitted to a RARP-NS or LRP-NS. A self-administered questionnaire on expectations before surgery, and level of satisfaction after surgery was used. Results A total of 134 cases were included in our analysis. A higher percentage of capsular bulging was found in the RARP group, compared to the LRP group (p = 0.077). At biopsy, the percentage of positive cores and multifocality were higher in the RARP group (p = 0.005). Positive SM (SM+) rate was higher in the RARP, than in LRP group (p = 0.046). On univariable analysis, the risk of SM+ increased 1.95 times using RARP when compared with LRP. On multivariable analysis, the surgical approach did not maintain a significant predictive role in terms of risk for SM+. Expectations before surgery were mainly focused on oncological radicality, however in the RARP group a higher percentage of cases focused on sexual function recovery. Satisfaction after surgery was lower in the RARP than in the LRP group. Conclusions Comparing LRP-NS with RARP-NS in a high-volume single center, the expectation/satisfaction ratio is in favor of LRP. Worse oncologic preoperative characteristics in the RARP group may influence the higher incidence of SM+. However, the surgical approach does not result as a significant and independent factor able to influence SM positivity.