After doing alot of research I determined that laproscopic was a good choice for me. my sugeon had done about 1400 procedures and has had the same results with robotic and laproscopic. It is not experimental at all any more. Some say that the difference between robotic and laproscopic is that the surgean can "feel" the procedure better. This is the same rationale that Johns-Hopkins surgeon Patrick Walsh uses to advocate open surgery. Ultimately each doc develops his/her own expertise in a method. Find someone who has done lots and lots of whatever procedure your research and interviews leads you to.
Age 55, two teens, very fit cyclist (avg 2000+ miles per year) and weight, diet, etc. consistent with good habits. Stressful job as attorney; very supporting wife who is helping me through every stage of this war.
2006 PSA - 1.5
2007 PSA - 2.3
2008 PSA - 5.3 (18 mos.)
2009 Jan. 20 - Biopsy 12 samples
Feb 3 Dx 2/12 samples positive, low volume (5% and 7-10%)
Gleason 3+4, later downgraded by second opinion at Johns-Hopkins to 3+3, but "it's still PCa" as my Doc said.
Laproscopic surgery April 9, University of KY Medical Center, Lexington, 3 days in hospital, catheter removal April 21.
Pathology: clear margins, no cancer in prostate: told that this is very rare and Doc has only seen it in 3 out of over 1400 cases; I rearched the concept of "vanishing cancer" and found a tumor classification of tP0 and asked Doc if it applied to me. He said that it was unlikely because if a pathologist had done a much more detailed analysis of the tissue, he would likely find more foci somewhere, and biopsy found "needle in the haystack as opposed to the tip of the iceberg"; Nevertheless, it is a blessing;
Regardless of the science, my family says "miracle."
Now working w/ post-surgery issues....