Comparative analysis of early post-operative outcomes between retzius-sparing and anterior approach robotic radical prostatectomy for a single surgeon

Abstract

Introduction:

The aim of this study was to compare intraoperative and early post-operative outcomes between retzius-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) versus standard approach for RARP (S-RARP).

Patients and methods:

All RARPs by a single surgeon were included and divided into two groups: (1) standard approach including combined anterior–posterior approach (S-RARP); (2) retzius-sparing posterior approach (RS-RARP). Allocation was based on prostate size and location of index lesion on MRI. Initial post-operative follow-up was at 6 weeks.

Results:

Overall, 169 RARPs were performed between March 2018 and October 2021: S-RARP = 99 versus RS-RARP = 70. There was no significant difference in pre-operative body mass index (BMI), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group and clinical T stage.

Intraoperative differences were found in blood loss (300 versus 200 mL, p = 0.008), console time (180 versus 135 minutes, p < 0.001) favouring RS-RARP, with no differences in nerve-spare or lymph node dissection.

Post-operatively, no difference was found in ISUP grade, pathological T stage, positive surgical margins, number of lymph nodes sampled, readmissions or complications. Gland size in the RS group was smaller (38 versus 29 g, p = 0.001). Early (6 weeks) post-op follow-up showed a significant difference between groups for both pad-free continence (35% versus 53%, p = 0.011) and social continence (79% versus 89%, p = 0.024), but no difference for erectile function recovery (27% versus 50% of baseline) and post-op PSA levels < 0.1 ng/mL (85% versus 93%).

Conclusion:

Even early in the learning curve, continence recovery, operative time and blood loss were significantly better for RS-RARP than S-RARP. Margin status and PSA levels are comparable to published literature for both groups. Standardised training in RS-RARP might help to improve the uptake of this novel technique.

Level of evidence:

Keywords

Retzius-sparing learning curve training robot-assisted radical prostatectomy oncological control functional outcomes

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Prabhu

Sivarajan

Taksler

, et al. Long-term continence outcomes in men undergoing radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2014; 65(1): 52–57.

Galfano

Ascione

Grimaldi

, et al. A new anatomic approach for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: A feasibility study for completely intrafascial surgery. Eur Urol 2010; 58(3): 457–461.

Dalela

Jeong

Prasad

, et al. 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; 72: 677–685.

Phukan

Mclean

Nambiar

, et al. Retzius sparing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy vs. conventional robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol 2020; 38(5): 1123–1134.

Barakat

Othman

Gauger

, et al. Retzius sparing radical prostatectomy versus robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Which technique is more beneficial for prostate cancer patients (MASTER study)? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus 2022; 8: 1060–1071.

Umari

Eden

Cahill

, et al. Retzius-sparing versus standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A comparative prospective study of nearly 500 patients. J Urol 2021; 205(3): 780–790.

Checcucci

Veccia

Fiori

, et al. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy vs the standard approach: A systematic review and analysis of comparative outcomes. BJU Int 2020; 125: 8–16.

Galfano

Di Trapani

Sozzi

, et al. Beyond the learning curve of the Retzius-sparing approach for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Oncologic and functional results of the first 200 patients with ⩾ 1 year of follow-up. Eur Urol 2013; 64(6): 974–980.

European Association of Urology. Prostate cancer treatment, https://uroweb.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer/chapter/treatment (accessed 5 June 2022).

10.

Sivathasan

Patel

Smart

, et al. Incremental modification of robotic prostatectomy technique can lead to aggregated marginal gains to significantly improve functional outcomes without compromising oncological control. J Robot Surg 2022; 16: 665–675.

11.

Egan

Marhamati

Carvalho

FLF

, et al. 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; 79(6): 839–857.

12.

Olivero

Galfano

Piccinelli

, et al. Retzius-sparing robotic radical prostatectomy for surgeons in the learning curve: A propensity score-matching analysis. Eur Urol Focus 2021; 7(4): 772–778.

13.

Liss

Osann

Canvasser

, et al. Continence definition after radical prostatectomy using urinary quality of life: Evaluation of patient reported validated questionnaires. J Urol 2010; 183(4): 1464–1468.

14.

Orsi Academy, https://www.orsi-online.com/ (accessed 5 June 2022).

15.

Volpe

Ahmed

Dasgupta

, et al. Pilot validation study of the European Association of Urology robotic training curriculum. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 292–299.

16.

Menon

Dalela

Jamil

, et al. Functional recovery, oncologic outcomes and postoperative complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: An evidence-based analysis comparing the Retzius sparing and standard approaches. J Urol 2018; 199(5): 1210–1217.