[Rage against the machine -- necessity of robotic assisted prostatectomy]

During the last decade urologists have faced a dramatic increase in robotic surgery. Despite the exceptional acceptance of this technique there is a complete lack of evidence for the equi-efficacy or superiority of this technique compared to open or laparoscopic prostatectomy. There is now an increasing body of evidence for the evaluation of robotic assisted prostatectomy. Robotic assisted prostatectomy is a safe procedure. The rate of technical failure is small. The rate of surgical complications is comparable with that of open or conventional laparoscopic prostatectomy. Similar to the conventional laparoscopic prostatectomy there is a trend for a minor blood loss and a smaller transfusion rate compared to the retropubic approach. In recent meta-analyses there is no advatage regarding the oncological or functional outcome for robotic prostatectomy. Neither the rate of positive surgical margins nor the rate of biochemical recurrence favours robotic prostatectomy. Regarding functional outcome some publications describe better results for urinary and sexual function for robotic surgery. Careful evaluation of these data reveals a low level of evidence due to a strong bias in favour of robotic surgery. In contrast, recent analysis of "Medicare" data reveal a considerable poorer urinary function after robotic prostatectomy compared to open retropubic prostatectomy. The Urological Board of the Helios Hospital Group does not recommend the use of a robotic device for radical prostatectomy.