Robotic Vs Radical Surgery And Their Effects On Impotence

I have spoken with both patience who have had Radical and Robotic Surgery. All have had the same trouble with Impotence. These patience have ranged from 6 months to 2 years after surgery.

 Is there a percentage difference between these 2 surgerys and the % of cases with Impotence?

Choice of surgeon is the most important consideration, regardless of the method employed.

He will have a huge influence on the overall outcome, short term and long term side effects: nerves will suffer some trauma during surgery which can result in short term disfunction.

One of the main aspects of long term ED is whether it is possible for one or both nerves  be spared, and if so the surgeon's experience and expertise with nerve sparing techniques whether he is performing open or robotic surgery.

There is no theoretical basis for believing that the rates of functional recovery vary by choice of method, be it open radical retropubic radical prostatectomy, laparoscopic" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.laprp.com/article.php?aid=340">laparoscop radical prostatectomy, or robotic" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.laprp.com/article.php?aid=350">robotic prostate surgery. What matters is who is your surgeon: experience and focus.

laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: http://www.laprp.com/article.php?aid=340

robotic prostate surgery: http://www.laprp.com/article.php?aid=350

I think the "jury" is still out but the idea is that the robot can do finer "cuts" and thereby improve nerve sparing procedures. I believe one of the knocks against laproscopic surgery was the limited view of the surgical field.

It makes sense in theory but let's see what practice holds. In more advanced cases of prostate cancer they will NOT want to spare the nerves to help local or distant metastises.