Volume 65, Issue 3, Pages 610-619 (March 2014) Comparisons of the Perioperative, Functional, and Oncologic Outcomes After Robot- Assisted Versus Pure Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy  Guillaume Ploussard, Alexandre de la Taille, Morgan Moulin, Dimitri Vordos, Andras Hoznek, Claude-Clément Abbou, Laurent Salomon  European Urology  Volume 65, Issue 3, Pages 610-619 (March 2014) DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.049 Copyright © 2012 European Association of Urology Terms and Conditions

Fig. 1 Biochemical recurrence–free survival (RFS) curves stratified by the procedure (laparoscopic radical prostatectomy [LRP] vs robot-assisted radical prostatectomy [RALP]) according to the preoperative D’Amico risk group: low risk (log-rank test: p=0.672), intermediate risk (p=0.928), and high risk (p=0.413). European Urology 2014 65, 610-619DOI: (10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.049) Copyright © 2012 European Association of Urology Terms and Conditions

Fig. 2 Biochemical recurrence–free survival (RFS) curves stratified by the surgical volume of each surgeon (100–300, 300–500, >500 procedures) for the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and the robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP) groups. Curves were significantly different after 300 procedures in the LRP group (log-rank test: p=0.027) but not in the RALP group (p=0.132). European Urology 2014 65, 610-619DOI: (10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.049) Copyright © 2012 European Association of Urology Terms and Conditions

Fig. 3 Continence recovery rates at each medical visit in the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and the robot-assisted prostatectomy groups (overall cohort). The p values at each time point were preoperative (p=0.213), 1 mo (p=0.191), 3 mo (p=0.019), 6 mo (p=0.018), 12 mo (p=0.177), and 24 mo (p=0.024). European Urology 2014 65, 610-619DOI: (10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.049) Copyright © 2012 European Association of Urology Terms and Conditions

Fig. 4 Potency recovery rates at each medical visit in the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and in the robot-assisted prostatectomy groups after bilateral nerve-sparing surgery (overall cohort). The p values at each time point were preoperative (p=0.716), 1 mo (p<0.001), 3 mo (p=0.001), 6 mo (p<0.001), 12 mo (p<0.001) and 24 mo (p<0.001). European Urology 2014 65, 610-619DOI: (10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.049) Copyright © 2012 European Association of Urology Terms and Conditions