title: [Radical prostatectomy: open, laparoscopic and robotic. Looking for a new gold standard?].
abstract: BACKGROUND
  It is well known that radical prostatectomy (RP) is an excellent option in localized prostatic cancer especially from oncological control point of view. The efforts, during last decades, of the urological community in this field have been addressed in trying to improve functional outcomes (urinary and sexual morbidity) after the procedure. From the beginning of this century, three managements (open, robotic and laparoscopic) have been coexisting trying to get and prove the best results. The objective of this review has been to make the most exhaustive, rigorous and objective updating with the functional and oncological outcomes from the three (RP) techniques.
  
  
  METHODS
  We have centered the comparison in four sections: perioperative, oncological outcomes, functional results and economic costs. With this purpose a systematic search was made in the following registers: PubMed, OVID, EMBASE and Cochrane Library, with the following terms: Retropubic RP. open RP, laparoscopic RP, robotic RP, Sexual function, urinary incontinence, quality of life, economic costs. At author's criteria, a total of 73 references were selected, that were individually analyzed.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Whatever the technique is, the mortality related to the procedure is extremely low, with little postoperative pain and minimum analgesic requirements. The oncological results are similar, measured in surgical margin terms: Open RP (14-20%), Laparoscopic RP (7.4-21.9%) and robotic RP (5.7-17.3%). Concerning functional results (sexual function and urinary continence), it is difficult to establish comparisons due to the multitude of existing byas (non randomized studies, different methods and measurement scales, different definitions, etc.) In the uni-insitutional studies, results seem to be equivalent.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Laparoscopic and robotic RP series are still pending of mature outcomes, related to long term biochemical control and functional results. It seems that with these managements, blood loss and transfusion needs are minor compared to open surgery. Robotic technology adds very interesting advantages that could have an important role in homogenize the minimally invasive management, but are still pending of validation at medium and long term.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Weill Medical College at Cornell University, New York, USA. jum2013@med.cornell.edu
authors.forename: J I
authors.initials: JI
authors.lastname: Martínez-Salamanca
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Allona Almagro
mesh_terms: D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D006801:Humans; D010535:Laparoscopy; D008297:Male; D011468:Prostatectomy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards*; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000601:surgery*; D012371:Robotics