For men who are advised to have their prostate removed when prone to cancer, a key decision lies with them on the performance of the surgery. They are found to face a dilemma to go either for the traditional prostate surgery or for the latest robotic. In the recent past, due to aggressive marketing, the robotic surgery has gained prominence and men are feeling it more reliable than the previous one. But how far is the robotic prostate surgery is beneficial than the traditional prostate surgery?
According to a recent study, there is not much difference in the successful results of the expensive robotic surgery than the Da Vinci surgical procedure. There is less quality evidence to support the myth of the latest surgical process. It has been observed that the complaints related to incontinence and erectile dysfunction are a common occurrence among men after following either of the two procedures.
Dr Otis Brawley, Chief Medical Officer of the American Cancer Society was not originally involved in the survey, has commented that the robotic prostatectomy has gained unnecessary hype that it deserves.
Study Published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology:
This new study has been performed on 600 prostate cancer patients on Medicare health insurance for the elderly. Among the total patients, 400 were performed using a robotic process where the surgeon uses a robot to reach the prostate by making multiple small holes in the patients’ belly. Whereas, the rest of the 200 patients were performed traditional prostatectomy in which a long cut is made in the belly to access the prostate.
Later it has been observed that 9 out of 10 men had complained of erectile dysfunction after 14 months of the surgery. There were no visible differences in the outcomes or complaints of the two groups of patients. In fact, the incontinence problem was slightly common in the men who got their prostatectomy done via the robotic process.
Robotic prostatectomy has picked up a lot in the US market as an only option for prostate cancer. The popularity of the process has covered the fact that it does not prove any convincing results among the patients. However, it is more costly (3times costlier than the traditional surgery) to be affordable for everyone.