An evidence-based analysis comparing two approaches of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the standard technique and Retzius-sparing technique

This article was originally published here

Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2021 Apr 20;101(15):1083-1087. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20200902-02546.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the postoperative outcomes and urinary continence recovery time between standard robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) and Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RsRARP). Methods: A total of 92 patients with low to intermediate-risk prostate cancer who underwent RARP (n=52) and RsRARP (n=40) in Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital from October, 2016 to January, 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Perioperative data (operative time, estimated blood loss, complications, postoperative staging, postoperative Gleason score) and surgical outcomes (rate of margin positive, urinary continence recovery time) of RARP and RsRARP group were comparatively analyzed. Results: All 92 cases were successfully performed with robot. RARP group had a significantly shorter mean operative time when compared with that in RsRARP group ((103±23) min vs (130±26) min, P<0.05). The two groups had comparable estimated blood loss ((100±54) ml vs (103±64) ml, P>0.05), rate of postoperative infection (5.8% (3/52) vs 5.0% (2/40), P>0.05) and rate of postoperative urine leakage (3.8%(2/52) vs 2.5%(1/40), P>0.05). The two groups had a comparable rate of margin positive (7.7%(4/52) vs 12.5%(5/40), P>0.05). Compared with RsRARP group, the RARP group had a lower rate of urinary continence recovery immediately after the catheter removing at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months after the operation (all P>0.05). The two group had a comparable rate of urinary continence recovery at 6 months after the operation (P>0.05). Conclusion: The RsRARP technique has a good tumor control and obvious advantage of early urinary continence recovery compared with the standard RARP technique. RsRARP technique is safe and effective for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

PMID:33878836 | DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20200902-02546