In addition, there is no significance difference in these two parameters for the two surgical techniques in this prospective, but not randomized, study. However, it is important to realize that this comparison involves the initial learning curve of this center's RALP versus the latter of more than 2,000 RRP cases by the senior surgeon. Repeating this comparison after 100 cases experience with the RALP may be more illuminating. As the authors aptly point out, other factors in operative outcome may be more important in determining the ultimate role of RALP in the management of prostate cancer. Emerging data is suggesting that the RALP may improve continence and potency, while maintaining satisfactory margin status compared to the RRP.^{1, 2} Further, multi-institutional, long-term follow-up is necessary to fully assess this new surgical modality in comparison to the long held standard of radical retropubic prostatectomy.

1. Rassweiller J, Seemann O, Schulze M, et al: Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: A comparative study at a single institution. J Urol 169: 1689-1693, 2003.
2. Ahlering TE, Eichel L and Skarecky D: Rapid communication: Early potency outcomes with cautery free neurovascular bundle preservation with robotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 19 (6): 715-718, 2005.

J Urol 174: 912-914, 2005