Clinical advantages of robotic-assisted radical prostate cancer surgery: With the development of technology, various interventional and minimally invasive treatment methods have revolutionized the surgical approach. In the United States and Europe, robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery is gradually replacing various traditional surgical approaches with its unique advantages and becoming one of the mainstream surgical approaches. As early as 2008, robotic-assisted technology was used in 53% of radical prostate cancer surgeries in the United States. In the United Kingdom, 30% of radical prostate cancer surgeries were performed with robotic assistance by 2012. In China, robotic surgery is a late start, and only a few large medical centers have introduced this technology. The Department of Urology of Renji Hospital of Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine will also carry out this leading international technology in the second half of this year. Robotic-assisted radical prostate cancer surgery has further advantages over traditional laparoscopic radical prostate cancer surgery. (1) The operation time is short and intraoperative bleeding is significantly reduced. The operating time of robotic-assisted surgery is similar to that of open surgery, and can even be shorter. Due to the good ergonomic characteristics of this technique, intraoperative bleeding can be controlled to about 100 ml on average, which is significantly lower than that of traditional open surgery, and its perioperative complication rate is only half of that of traditional open posterior pubic bone prostate cancer radical surgery, so it is safer. (2) The postoperative recovery is faster and has less impact on patients’ quality of life. Robotic-assisted radical prostate cancer treatment can further shorten patients’ postoperative recovery time, and patients have less pain and other adverse effects after surgery, which better highlights the benefits of minimally invasive technology for patients and further improves the efficiency of medical resources utilization. In addition, the recovery time of patients’ postoperative urinary control function is significantly shorter than that of traditional open surgery. Patients are left with catheterization for 3~5 days on average after surgery, and most patients are able to recover to a more satisfactory level of urinary control in about 2 months after surgery. (3) Tumor control is better than that of traditional surgical methods. The positive margin rate after robotic-assisted radical prostate cancer surgery was significantly lower than that of traditional open surgery. In addition, the incidence of postoperative PSA >0.2 ng/ml was about half that of the conventional surgical approach, suggesting that robotic-assisted techniques may reduce the possibility of tumor residual. Of course, further follow-up data are still needed to confirm the long-term survival benefit status of this treatment modality. (4) Short learning period and reduced risk of occupational exposure Unlike conventional laparoscopic surgery, the 3D environment of the operating robot is more similar to that of open surgery, unlike the “flatness” that can be associated with conventional laparoscopy. Therefore, the learning cycle for robotic-assisted radical prostate cancer treatment is significantly shorter than that of traditional laparoscopic techniques and is more acceptable to surgeons. The risk of occupational exposure is reduced because the operator performs the surgery by manipulating the robotic arm without direct contact with the patient.