AIM: To determine peri-operative, oncological, functional and safety profiles of extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy(e RARP) vs transperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy(t RARP) in a single centre.METHODS: A total of 120 consecutive patients underwent 50 e RARP and 70 e RARP operations respectively by the same surgical team. Peri-operative and post-operative outcomes including blood loss, hospitalization, complications(Clavien grade), positive surgical margin(PSM) rates, continence and erectile function were compared. The performance of e RARP required several technical modifications. These included developmentof Retzius’ space by balloon insufflation, laparoscopic dissection of lateral extensions of this area; caudal port positioning; cranial digital stripping of peritoneum for sucker port and lodging the bagged prostate specimen adjacent to the lateral assistant port to permit space for urethro-vesical anastomosis.RESULTS: Robotic console times were shorter with e RARP vs t RARP(145.1 min vs 198.3 min, P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in blood loss, PSM rates(e RARP 17.7% vs t RARP 22%) or complications(e RARP 8.5% vs t RARP 8%). A drain was used in all patients after t RARP and in 25/70 e RARP cases. Length of hospital stay was shorter after e RARP(mean 1.94 d vs 3.6 d, P < 0.0002). There were no differences between techniques in continence or potency at 6 mo. e RARP required several technical modifications: development of Retzius’ space by balloon insufflation, laparoscopic dissection of lateral extensions of this area; caudal port positioning; and lodging the bagged prostate specimen adjacent to the lateral assistant port to permit space for urethro-vesical anastomosis.CONCLUSION: e RARP demonstrated advantages in surgical times, hospital stay and equivalence in PSM rates, complications and functional outcomes. e RARP is a useful alternative to t RARP especially in patients with adhesions, pre-existing inguinal hernias, or those unable to withstand steep Trendelenburg position. AIM: To determine peri-operative, oncological, functional and safety profiles of extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (e RARP) vs transperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (t RARP) in a single center. METHODS: A total of 120 consecutive patients underwent Peri-operative and post-operative outcomes include blood loss, hospitalization, complications (Clavien grade), positive surgical margin (PSM) rates, continence and erectile function were compared. These included development of Retzius’ space by balloon insufflation, laparoscopic dissection of lateral extensions of this area; caudal port positioning; cranial digital stripping of peritoneum for sucker port and lodging the bagged prostate specimen adjacent to the lateral assistant port to permit space for urethro-vesical anastomosis .RESULTS: Robotic console times were shorte There were no significant differences in blood loss, PSM rates (e RARP 17.7% vs t RARP 22%) or complications (e RARP 8.5% vs t RARP 8%). A drain was used in all patients after t RARP and in 25/70 e RARP cases. Length of hospital stay was shorter after e RARP (mean 1.94 d vs 3.6 d, P <0.0002). There were no differences between techniques in continence or potency at 6 mo. e RARP required several technical modifications: development of Retzius’ space by balloon insufflation, laparoscopic dissection of lateral extensions of this area; caudal port positioning; and lodging the bagged prostate specimen adjacent to the lateral assistant port to permit space for urethro-vesical anastomosis. CONCLUSION: e RARP demonstrated advantages in surgical times, hospital stay and equivalence in PSM rates, complications and functional outcomes. e RARP is a useful alternative to t RARP especially in patients with adhesions, pre- existing inguinal hernias, or that unable unable to withstand steep Trendelenburg position.