Retzius-Sparing vs Modified Anatomical Structure Preserving and Retzius-Repairing Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Prospective Randomized Comparison on Functional Outcomes with a 1-Year Follow-Up
- PMID: 35546454
- DOI: 10.1089/end.2022.0073
Retzius-Sparing vs Modified Anatomical Structure Preserving and Retzius-Repairing Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Prospective Randomized Comparison on Functional Outcomes with a 1-Year Follow-Up
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the short-term and 1-year follow-up functional outcomes of modified anatomical structure preserving and Retzius-repairing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (APR-RARP) compared with Retzius-sparing (RS) RARP. Methods: Eighty consecutive patients 40-75 years of age with low-intermediate risk prostate cancer were prospectively randomized to APR-RARP or RS-RARP. Urinary continence (UC) recovery rates were evaluated from catheter removal up to 1 year follow-up. Postoperative UC was defined as 0 pads/one security pad per day. UC recovery rates from catheter removal to 1 year were calculated by Kaplan-Meier curve; log-rank test was used for the curve comparison. Postoperative potency was evaluated at 3 and 12 months after surgeries. Perioperative complications, positive surgical margin (PSM), and biochemical recurrence rates represent secondary outcomes reported in the study. Results: At the catheter removal, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after operation, 52.5% (confidence interval [CI] 95%: 37.6-67), 82.5% (CI 95%: 70.8-94), 95% (CI 95%: 88.3-99.1), 97.5% (CI 95%: 92.5-99.9), and 97.5% (CI 95%: 92.5-99.9) of men undergoing the APR-RARP were continent (0 pads/one security pad per day), compared with 61.5% (CI 95%: 46.5-76.6), 89.7% (CI 95%: 80.3-98.1), 97.5% (CI 95%: 92.6-99.9), 97.5% (CI 95%: 92.6-99.9), and 97.5% (CI 95%: 92.6-99.9) undergoing the RS-RARP, respectively, and the Kaplan Meier curve showed no statistically significant difference for both technique at any time point (log-rank p = 0.556). The median (95% CI) time to UC recovery was 9.8 (5.2-14.4) days for the APR-RARP vs 6.7 (3.2-10.2) days for the RS-RARP group. Potency rates were similar in both groups at 3 and 12 months after surgeries. The two compared approaches; in terms of rate of complications, PSM was similar. Conclusions: Surgeons can achieve functional results comparable to the RS technique with the modified reconstructive anterior approach, without changing the surgical technique they are used to.
Keywords: Retzius sparing; anatomical reconstruction; prostate cancer; randomized controlled trial; robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; urinary continence.
Comment in
-
Urological Oncology: Prostate Cancer.J Urol. 2022 Nov;208(5):1159-1161. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002909. Epub 2022 Aug 19. J Urol. 2022. PMID: 35984095 No abstract available.
-
Laparoscopy/New Technology.J Urol. 2023 May;209(5):1010-1011. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003207. Epub 2023 Feb 22. J Urol. 2023. PMID: 37026645 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial Examining the Impact of the Retzius-sparing Approach on Early Urinary Continence Recovery After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy.Eur Urol. 2017 Nov;72(5):677-685. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.029. Epub 2017 May 6. Eur Urol. 2017. PMID: 28483330 Clinical Trial.
-
Retzius-sparing Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Leads to Durable Improvement in Urinary Function and Quality of Life Versus Standard Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Without Compromise on Oncologic Efficacy: Single-surgeon Series and Step-by-step Guide.Eur Urol. 2021 Jun;79(6):839-857. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.05.010. Epub 2020 Jun 11. Eur Urol. 2021. PMID: 32536488
-
Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparative study with 19-month follow-up.Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2020 Oct;72(5):586-594. doi: 10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03830-8. Epub 2020 Aug 4. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2020. PMID: 32748620
-
Retzius-sparing versus standard robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Aug 18;8(8):CD013641. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013641.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020. PMID: 32813279 Free PMC article.
-
Surgical and functional outcomes of Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus conventional robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer. Are outcomes worth it? Systematic review and meta-analysis.Prostate. 2023 Nov;83(15):1395-1414. doi: 10.1002/pros.24604. Epub 2023 Aug 9. Prostate. 2023. PMID: 37555617
Cited by
-
Retzius-sparing vs. posterior urethral suspension: similar early-phase post-robotic radical prostatectomy continence outcomes.J Robot Surg. 2024 Feb 5;18(1):64. doi: 10.1007/s11701-023-01754-0. J Robot Surg. 2024. PMID: 38315436
-
Retzius sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: optimizing functional results.World J Urol. 2024 Jun 25;42(1):385. doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-05066-2. World J Urol. 2024. PMID: 38916624
-
Retzius-sparing vs. standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for clinically localised prostate cancer: a comparative study.Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2023 Sep;26(3):568-574. doi: 10.1038/s41391-022-00625-3. Epub 2022 Nov 29. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2023. PMID: 36443438
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous