***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: INTRODUCTION Lack of r and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ) that compare pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy ( LRP ) with robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy ( RALRP ) is an important gap of the literature related to the surgical treatment of the clinical ly localized prostate cancer ( PCa ) . AIM To provide the first prospect i ve r and omized comparison on the functional and oncological outcomes of LRP and RALRP for the treatment of the clinical ly localized PCa . METHODS Between 2007 and 2008 , 128 consecutive male patients were r and omized in two groups and treated by a single experienced surgeon with traditional LRP ( Group I-64 patients ) or RALRP ( Group II-64 patients ) in all cases with intent of bilateral intrafascial nerve sparing . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary end point was to compare the 12 months erectile function ( EF ) outcomes . Complication rates , continence outcomes , and oncological results were also compared . The sample size of our study was able , with an adequate power ( 1-beta > 0.90 ) , to recognize as significant large differences ( above 0.30 ) between incidence proportions of considered outcomes . RESULTS No statistically significant differences were observed for operating time , estimated blood loss , transfusion rate , complications , rates of positive surgical margins , rates of biochemical recurrence , continence , and time to continence . However , the 12-month evaluation of capability for intercourse ( with or without phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors ) showed a clear and significant advantage of RALRP ( 32 % vs. 77 % , P < 0.0001 ) . Time to capability for intercourse was significantly shorter for RALRP . Rates of return to baseline International Index of Erectile Function ( IIEF-6 ) EF domain score question naires ( questions 1 - 5 and 15 ) ( 25 % vs. 58 % ) and to IIEF-6 > 17 ( 38 % vs. 63 % ) were also significantly higher for RALRP ( P = 0.0002 and P = 0.008 , respectively ) . CONCLUSIONS Our study offers the first high-level evidence that RALRP provides significantly better EF recovery than LRP without hindering the oncologic radicality of the procedure . Larger RCTs are needed to confirm if a new gold-st and ard treatment in the field of RP has risen PURPOSE Minimally invasive surgery has been shown to decrease postoperative morbidity and length of stay for a number of surgical procedures . Furthermore , length of stay after open radical prostatectomy has decreased dramatically during the last decade . We examined differences in length of stay between a prospect ively evaluated cohort of patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy .  MATERIAL S AND METHODS Between January 2003 and March 2006 , 1,003 radical prostatectomies were performed at our hospital . Data were collected in prospect i ve fashion and a comparison was made between 374 patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy and 629 who underwent robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy .  Length of stay , factors influencing length of stay , readmission rates and unscheduled clinic or emergency room visits were evaluated . Patients in the 2 groups were treated using the same clinical care pathway . RESULTS Overall 94.3 % of patients in the radical retropubic prostatectomy group and 97.5 % in the robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group were discharged home on or before postoperative day 1 . Mean length of stay in the radical retropubic and robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy groups was 1.25 ( median 1.09 ) and 1.17 days ( median 1.03 ) , which was similar and not statistically different ( p=0.27 ) . Readmission rates were similar in robot assisted laparoscopic and radical retropubic prostatectomy patients ( 7 % and 5 % , respectively , p=0.12 ) . Unscheduled clinic or emergency room visits were the same in the robot assisted laparoscopic and radical retropubic prostatectomy groups ( 10 % , p=0.95 ) . CONCLUSIONS Patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy or robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy  can be treated on the same clinical pathway . A targeted hospital discharge date of postoperative day 1 can be achieved in the majority of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy . Readmission rates or unscheduled hospital visits are necessary in a small percent of patients treated with an early discharge program , of which the majority are caused by ileus OBJECTIVES To prospect ively compare intra- and peri-operative outcomes of  open radical retropubic prostatectomy ( RRP ) and laparoscopic prostatectomy ( LRP )  by a single surgeon . PATIENTS AND METHODS One-hundred-twenty , consecutive , age-matched patients diagnosed with clinical ly localized prostate cancer were eligible for surgery . Sixty patients underwent RRP and 60 , LRP .  Intra- and peri-operative parameters , pathologic findings and early complications were recorded . A vali date d visual analogue scale was used to assess pain in the recovery room , 3 h after the operation and on post-operative days 1 , 2 and 3 . A cystogram was performed on post-operative day 5 . RESULTS Operating time was significantly shorter in the RRP group versus the LRP group ( mean+/-SD , 170+/-34 . 2 vs 235+/-49.9 min , p<0.001 ) . Blood loss was significantly less in the LRP group versus the RRP group ( mean+/-SD , 853.3+/-485 vs 257.3+/-177 ml , p<0.001 ) , but no patient in either group underwent early re-intervention for bleeding . The RRP group showed a trend for higher use of analgesia . A watertight anastomosis was shown at cystourethrography and the catheter removed in 86 % and 66 % of LRP and RRP patients , respectively . The overall percentage of post-operative complications and positive margins were comparable . CONCLUSION Laparoscopic prostatectomy is an attractive alternative to open prostatectomy , offering the advantages of reduced blood loss and safe early catheter removal . Furthermore , the laparoscopic procedure proved to be safe oncologically . Long-term follow-up is required to compare functional results in terms of continence and potency BACKGROUND The advantages of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy ( RARP ) over laparoscopic radical prostatectomy ( LRP ) have rarely been investigated in r and omised controlled trials . OBJECTIVE To compare RARP and LRP in terms of the functional , perioperative , and oncologic outcomes . The main end point of the study was changes in continence 3 mo after surgery . DESIGN , SETTING , AND PARTICIPANTS From January 2010 to January 2011 , 120 patients with organ-confined prostate cancer were enrolled and r and omly assigned ( using a r and omisation plan ) to one of two groups based on surgical approach : the RARP group and the LRP group . INTERVENTION All RARP and LRP interventions were performed with the same technique by the same single surgeon . OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The demographic , perioperative , and pathologic results , such as the complications and prostate-specific antigen ( PSA ) measurements , were recorded and compared . Continence was evaluated at the time of catheter removal and 48 h later , and continence and potency were evaluated after 1 , 3 , 6 , and 12 mo . The student t test , Mann-Whitney test , χ(2 ) test , Pearson χ(2 ) test , and multiple regression analysis were used for statistics . RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The two groups ( RARP : n=60 ; LRP : n=60 ) were comparable in terms of demographic data . No differences were recorded in terms of perioperative and pathologic results , complication rate , or PSA measurements . The continence rate was higher in the RARP group at every time point : Continence after 3 mo was 80 % in the RARP group and 61.6 % in the LRP group ( p=0.044 ) , and after 1 yr , the continence rate was 95.0 % and 83.3 % , respectively ( p=0.042 ) . Among preoperative potent patients treated with nerve-sparing techniques , the rate of erection recovery was 80.0 % and 54.2 % , respectively ( p=0.020 ) . The limitations included the small number of patients . CONCLUSIONS RARP provided better functional results in terms of the recovery of continence and potency . Further studies are needed to confirm our results BACKGROUND Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy ( RALP )  is an evolving minimally invasive treatment of for localized prostate cancer . We present our experience of 1500 consecutive cases with an analysis of perioperative outcomes . PATIENTS AND METHODS Fifteen hundred consecutive RALPs were performed by a single surgeon ( VRP ) . Following Institutional Review Board approval , clinical coordinators performed prospect i ve intraoperative and postoperative data collection . Functional outcomes were assessed using vali date d self-administered question naires . RESULTS Mean OR time from skin incision to  fascial closure  ( the time that the surgeon was present ) was 105 minutes ( 55 - 300 ) . Mean EBL was 111 cc ( 50 - 500 ) . Ninety-seven percent of patients were discharged home on postoperative day 1 . The overall complication rate was 4.3 % with no mortalities . The positive margin rate ( PMR ) was 9.3 % overall . PMR was 4 % for pT2 , 34 % for T3 and 40 % for pathologic stage T4 . CONCLUSIONS Our initial series represents one of the largest published series for perioperative outcomes of robotic assisted prostatectomy . Our data demonstrates the feasibility , safety and efficacy of the procedure 
    Output:
    
Nevertheless , robotic-assisted prostatectomy showed more favorable erectile function and urinary continence recovery .
At the present time , no clear advantage can be attributed to any of the existing prostatectomy approaches in terms of oncologic outcomes .
However , some differences in patient-related outcomes favor the newer methods .