3D Versus Robot Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy.
3D Versus Robot Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy.
A randomized, prospective study to compare the direct and indirect costs, functional and
 oncologic results of 3D laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy procedures.
The direct and indirect costs, functional and oncologic results of robot assisted radical
 prostatectomy (RALP) are compared to those of 3D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The
 hypothesis of the study is that the functional and oncologic results of the two operative
 methods are equal, but the direct costs of RAPL are significantly higher. A randomized,
 prospective non-inferiority study will will enroll 280 patients randomized 1:1 to both
 operative approaches to test this hypothesis. The primary functional outcome measure is the
 proportion of patients with complete urinary continence (no protective pad use) at 12 months
 post operatively. Secondary functional outcome measure is the preservation erectile function
 at 12 months post operatively. Oncologic outcome measures are the proportion of patients with
 undetectable post operative prostate specific antigen levels and positive surgical margins at
 pathological examination. The direct and indirect costs of both operative approaches are
 recorded.
Inclusion Criteria:

 -  Localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy

 -  Patient has to understand and be able to write and read Finnish language

 -  No prior head injury, dementia or Parkinson's disease

 -  No concomitant malignant illness

 -  Life expectancy of at least 10 years

 -  35-74 years of age

 Exclusion Criteria:

 -  Locally advanced prostate cancer (T4)

 -  Suspicion or documented metastases (M1)

 -  Serum PSA > 20 ng/ml

 -  Prior laparoscopic hernia surgery employing non resorbable mesh

 -  Prior pelvic irradiation or major surgery

 -  Prior malignant disease within prior 5 years excluding skin cancer (non-melanoma).