Radical prostatectomy is the most common therapy method used in the treatment of
localized prostate cancer. There are three main approaches to this surgery: open
radical prostatectomy (ORP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and robotassisted
radical prostatectomy (RARP). The review will compare these techniques
by assessing their different effects, such as oncologic control, perioperative
outcomes, and functional recovery. Oncologic results of all these techniques are
generally similar. The RARP is typically characterized by better functional recovery
among all three methods. Despite having many benefits, the RARP requires higher
costs and has limited access in some healthcare units. Although LRP is minimally
invasive, it is less widely adopted due to the longer time it takes to fully master this
technique. ORP is still an important approach in some settings, but has a higher
morbidity rate and longer recovery time. In choosing between all the methods of
treatment for a patient with prostate cancer, the patient's health status, the surgeon's
expertise, and the ability of the institution should be considered. Research has to be
continued, and the benefits and risks of all types of radical prostatectomy should be
compared to guarantee that the best methods will be chosen for treating such a
common neoplasm as prostate cancer. Aim of Study: to compare clinical outcomes
of open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy techniques. Main
target areas include perioperative parameters, oncologic control, functional
recovery, complication rates, and healthcare resource use, to determine the most
effective and patient-centered surgical approach.
Keywords: open radical prostatectomy, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, robotassisted
radical prostatectomy, oncologic outcomes, functional outcomes