Comparatively analyze the clinical efficacy and safety between robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, aiming to explore the advantages and limitations of robot-assisted surgical system applied in radical prostatectomy.

Fifty-four patients diagnosed with prostate cancer admitted to our hospital between March 2015 and April 2016 were recruited and assigned into the robot-assisted radical prostatectomy group. Fifty prostate cancer patients between January 2010 and January 2015 were allocated into the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy group. The operation time, intraoperative hemorrhage volume, perioperative blood transfusion rate, postoperative drainage volume, catheterization time, gastrointestinal functional recovery, length of hospital stay, urinary incontinence and surgical cost were statistically compared between the two groups.

Surgical procedures were successfully completed in both groups. No patient was switched to open surgery. In the robot-assisted radical prostatectomy group, urinary incontinence was significantly better (P<0.05), whereas intraoperative blood loss and perioperative blood transfusion rate were lower compared with those in the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy group. No significant differences were identified regard to postoperative drainage volume, gastrointestinal functional recovery and length of hospital stay between the two groups. In the robot-assisted radical prostatectomy group, operation time was longer and surgical cost was higher than those in the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy group.

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has advantages in terms of urinary incontinence and postoperative complications, which favor the widespread application of robot-assisted surgical system. Nevertheless, the surgical procedures are time consuming and require high surgical cost, which hinder the development of robot-assisted surgery.