Dear Steve!
I believe that robot assisted surgery is major step forward. The
healing time is very short, a couple of weeks instead of 6 to 8 weeks.
The blood loss is in the range of 1-2 dl instead of 1-2 liters. The
possibility for nervesparing is high. Intelligent tools are easy to
manouvre inside the body and the surgeon has a very good view of the
area.I think the learning curve for an experienced surgeon can be very
fast. Overall i judge the method to be worth it. The overall cost for
a patient is roughly the same independant of method but the result can
be much better.
It would however be very interesting to find a study comparing
different methods. I believe the the technique has been in use for
several years so there should be some experience gathered. I wait and
see.

I did a search on Pubmed.  I found lots of studies of outcomes
from the point of view of surgical complications, incontinence, recovery
time, and other measures that can be taken within a year or so of the
procedure.  However it appears that the procedure was first practiced
in 1998, so long term data is not available.

It also appears that, as with radical retropubic prostatectomy, the
procedures used by different surgeons are different - sometimes
quite different.  Certainly LRP, and I presume RRP, techniques are
developing over time.

As for getting info from a good surgeon, I'd prefer the scientific
study if good ones were available.  It would be a rare surgeon
indeed who would tell you that the technique he uses is inferior
to the technique used by someone else.  So when two surgeons
use two different techniques, either they both think that the two
techniques are pretty comparable, or else one of them is misguided.
But which one is it?

Scientists on the other hand are perfectly objective, with no bias
in their study designs or observations.  That's right, isn't it? ;^)

   Alan