Abstract
Introduction:
Retzius-sparing prostatectomy was promoted with the early continence result. The long-term oncologic outcome is still unknown. In this study, we aimed to compare the intermediate-term oncologic outcomes of these two approaches in patients' cohort who were treated as part of a randomized controlled trial.
Methods:
A total of 120 patients were previously randomized equally to receive Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) vs standard robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (S-RARP) between January 2015 and April 2016. Baseline, surgical, and pathologic characteristics as well as oncologic outcomes were assessed. The analysis was done based on the treatment received.
Result:
Sixty-three patients underwent S-RARP, whereas 57 patients underwent RS-RARP. There was no statistically significant difference in the baseline nor surgical characteristics. The median follow-up was 71.24 (interquartile range: 59.75–75.75) months. There were more pathologic T3 diseases in RS-RARP. There was no significant difference in the positive margin status nor in the biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate among both groups. After S-RARP and RS-RARP, 6 and 10 patients had BCR, and the 5 years BCR-free survival was 91% and 85%, respectively (p = 0.21).
Conclusion:
In this cohort, there was no difference in BCR in the patients who received either technique. Further multi-institutional studies with a larger sample size and longer follow-up are required.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.