Background:　Robot-assisted　radical　prostatectomy　(RARP)　is　increasingly　used　worldwide,　but　comparisons　of　perioperative,　functional,　and　oncologic　outcomes　among　RARP,　laparoscopic　radical　prostatectomy　(LRP),　and　open　radical　prostatectomy　(ORP)　remain　inconsistent.　Material/Methods:　Systematic　literature　searches　were　conducted　using　EMBASE,　PubMed,　the　Cochrane　Library,　CNKI,　and　Science　Direct/Elsevier　up　to　April　2017.　A　meta-analysis　was　conducted　using　Review　Manager　and　Stata　software.　Results:　We　included　33　studies.　Meta-analysis　revealed　that　blood　loss,　transfusion　rate,　and　positive　surgical　margin　(PSM)　rate　were　significantly　lower　following　RARP　compared　with　LRP　(SMD　(95%　confidence　interval　[CI])　0.31　[0.01,　0.61];　combined　ORs　(95%　CI)　5.32　[1.29,　21.98];　1.27　[1.10,　1.46])　and　ORP　(SMD　(95%　CI)　0.75　[0.30,　1.21];　and　combined　ORs　(95%　CI)　3.44　[1.21,　9.79]);　positive　surgical　margin　(PSM)　rates　were　significantly　lower　following　RARP　compared　with　LRP　(combined　ORs　(95%　CI)　1.27　[1.10,　1.46]),　but　not　ORP.　Operation　time　was　also　shorter　for　RARP　than　for　LRP.　The　rates　of　nerve-sparing,　recovery　of　complete　urinary　continence,　and　recovery　of　erectile　function　were　significantly　higher　following　RARP　compared　with　LRP　(combined　ORs　(95%　CI)　0.55　[0.31,　0.95];　0.66　[0.55,　0.78];　0.46　[0.30,　0.71])　and　ORP　(combined　ORs　(95%　CI)　0.36　[0.21,　0.63];　0.33　[0.15,　0.74];　0.65　[0.37,　1.14]).　Conclusions:　This　meta-analysis　demonstrates　that　RARP　results　in　better　overall　outcomes　than　LRP　and　ORP　in　terms　of　blood　loss,　transfusion　rate,　nerve　sparing,　urinary　continence　and　erectile　dysfunction　recovery,　and　suggests　that　RARP　offers　better　results　than　LRP　and　ORP　in　treatment　of　prostate　cancer.　However,　studies　with　larger　sample　sizes　and　long-term　results　are　needed.