Modified Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for cases with anterior tumor: a propensity score-matched analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes between a modified Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (mRS-RARP) technique and conventional robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (Con-RARP) technique for cases with anterior prostate cancer (PCa), especially positive surgical margin (PSM) rates and urinary continence (UC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively included 193 mRS-RARP and 473 Con-RARP consecutively performed by a single surgeon for anterior PCa. Perioperative complications, pathology, and continence were compared after propensity score matching using 9 variables. RESULTS: After matching (n = 193 per group), PSM were not significantly different in the two groups (16.1% in mRS-RARP group vs. 15.0% in Con-RARP group, p = 0.779). The UC at catheter removal and at 1-month was significantly higher in the mRS-RARP (24.9% vs. 9.8%, p < 0.001; 29.0% vs. 13.5%, p < 0.001, respectively), but not at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups (p = 0.261, 0.832, and 0.683, respectively). CONCLUSION: mRS-RARP seems to be an oncologically safe approach for patients with anterior PCa. Compared with the conventional approach, mRS-RARP approach shows benefits in the short-term postoperative UC recovery.

Prostate size ≥ 100 g and its association with long-term outcomes of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether perioperative and functional outcomes of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) may be affected by large prostate sizes (PS). METHODS: All patients treated with RS-RARP were identified and compared according to PS. The definition of PS relied on the prostatic weight at final pathology (PS < 100 g vs ≥ 100 g). Multivariable logistic regression models tested immediate and 12-month urinary continence recovery (UCR, namely, 0-1 safety pad per-day), and positive surgical margins (PSM). Multivariable Poisson log-linear regression analyses tested operative time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), and length of stay (LOS). The analyses relied on the database of a high-volume European institution (2010-2022). RESULTS: Of 1,555 overall patients, 1503 (96.7%) had a PS < 100 g and 52 (3.3%) had a PS ≥ 100 g. No differences were recorded in LOS (3 days), and intraoperative (1.9 vs 2.3%) as well as postoperative complications (13 vs 12%; all p values > 0.05). No significant difference was recorded in PSM (25 vs 23%, p = 0.6). In patients with PS ≥ 100 g vs < 100 g, immediate UCR rate was 42 vs 64% (p = 0.002), and 12-month UCR rate was 87 vs 88% (p = 0.3). PV ≥ 100 g independently predicted worse immediate UCR (odds ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.30-0.98, p = 0.044), but not worse 12-month UCR (p = 0.3) or higher PSM (p = 0.7). PV ≥ 100 g independently predicted longer OT (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.12, 95% CI 1.10-1.15, p < 0.001) and higher EBL (IRR 1.26, 95% CI 1.24-1.28, p < 0.001), but not longer LOS (p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: RS-RARP is a valid option for prostate cancer treatment, even in case of very large prostates. Specifically, no significant association was recognized between PS ≥ 100 g and PSM or 12-month UCR.

Retzius sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: optimizing functional results.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to critically evaluate the existing body of evidence regarding the efficacy of Retzius-sparing radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) in achieving improved functional outcomes. Moreover, we explored possible strategies to further optimize functional outcomes. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review (PROSPERO ID CRD42024539915) was performed on 9th September 2023 on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Only original articles in the English language reporting functional outcomes after RS-RARP were included. RESULTS: Overall, the search string yielded 99 results on PubMed, 122 on Scopus, and 120 on Web Of Science. After duplicate exclusion, initial screening and eligibility evaluation, a total of 47 studies were included in the qualitative analysis, corresponding to a cohort of 13.196 patients. All studies reported continence recovery. RS-RARP appeared to achieve better and faster continence recovery compared to S-RARP. However, it should be noted that continence definition was heterogeneous and not based on validated condition-specific questionnaires. Seven (15%) studies provided for any sort of rehabilitation for urinary incontinence after RS-RARP. 22 studies analyzed potency recovery rates, showing no difference between RS-RARP and S-RARP. The evaluation of this outcome poses a great challenge due to the lack of standardized assessment tools and reporting methods. Only two studies reported on the consistent use of post-operative PDE5i as penile rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: The current review highlights the satisfactory functional results of Retzius-sparing robot assisted radical prostatectomy, which holds true irrespective of disease stage and prostate volume, with promising results even in patients previously treated for BPH or in the salvage setting. How can we optimize those results? The answer does not probably lie in further refinement of the surgical technique, but in giving greater attention to patient counselling and rehabilitation strategies in order to minimize regret and maximize satisfaction.

Peritoneal Distraction Technique to Reduce Symptomatic Lymphoceles after Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

Background: In Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), lymphocele formation is a troublesome complication. The use of peritoneal flaps has emerged as a promising novel technique to tackle this complication. We explored this technique by suturing both the medial peritoneal flaps to each other and keeping them distracted so that the lymphadenectomy beds are left wide open. Objective: To assess the efficacy of our peritoneal distraction technique on lymphocele rates following Retzius-sparing RARP. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included patients with localized prostate carcinoma who underwent Retzius-sparing RARP with standard pelvic lymph node dissection between May 2014 and September 2022 at Aster Medcity, Kochi, India. Based on the use of the technique, patients were divided into two groups: peritoneal distraction and closed groups. Both groups were matched using the propensity scoring method in a 1:1 ratio. Results: A total of 272 patients were included, of which 89 (32.7%) belonged to the peritoneal distraction group. Although the overall incidence of lymphocele between the two groups were comparable, none of the patients in the peritoneal distraction group required any intervention for lymphocele management, as opposed to 7 patients from the closed group (3.9%; P = 0.015). No significant association was found between lymphocele formation and serum prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason score, and the number of lymph nodes harvested. Conclusions: This study found that peritoneal distraction stitch is a simple and effective technique to reduce the incidence of symptomatic lymphocele that require intervention after Retzius-sparing RARP.

Membranous urethral length is the single independent predictor of urinary continence recovery at 12 months following Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

The influence of anatomical parameters on urinary continence (UC) after Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) remains uncharted. Our objective was to evaluate their association with UC at 3, 6 and 12 months post-operatively. Data from patients who underwent RS-RARP were prospectively collected. Continence was defined as no pad use. Anatomic variables were measured on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of UC at each time point. We included 158 patients with a median age of 60 years, most of whom had a localized tumor (≤ cT2). On multivariate analyses, at 3 months post-surgery, urinary incontinence (UI) rises with age, odds ratio (OR) 1.07 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.004-1.142] and with prostate volume (PV), OR 1.029 (95% CI 1.006-1.052); it reduces with longer membranous urethral length (MUL), OR 0.875 (95% CI 0.780-0.983) and with higher membranous urethral volume (MUV), OR 0.299 (95% CI 0.121-0.737). At 6 months, UI rises with PV, OR 1.033 (95% CI 1.011-1.056) and decreases with MUV, OR 0.1504 (95% CI 0.050-0.444). Significantly, at 12 months post-surgery, the only predictor of UI is MUL, OR 0.830 (95% CI 0.706-0.975), establishing a threshold associated with a risk of UI of 5% (MUL > 15 mm) in opposition to a risk of 25% (MUL < 10 mm). This single institutional study requires external validation. To our knowledge, this is the first prospective cohort study supporting MUL as the single independent predictor of UC at 12 months post-surgery. By establishing MUL thresholds, we enable precise patient counseling.

Retzius-sparing vs. posterior urethral suspension: similar early-phase post-robotic radical prostatectomy continence outcomes.

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a risk of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RP) which can be a frustrating problem for both surgeons and patients. We aim to compare short-term continence outcomes between patients undergoing Retzius Sparing RP (RS-RP) and those undergoing standard RP with the inclusion of a PUS suture technique and suprapubic tube (PUS-RP). A retrospective review of 105 consecutive patients who underwent RP was performed, comparing patients who underwent RS-RP and PUS-RP. Our main outcome was pad usage as a surrogate for SUI. Patients were evaluated 4 weeks following RP and again at approximately 3 months. Continence was defined as no pad usage or up to one safety pad per day. Risk factors associated with not being continent were identified using univariate and multivariate analyses. In our cohort, 52 patients underwent RS-RP and 53 patients underwent PUS-RP. The two groups had similar patient demographics. Although not statistically significant, there was a higher rate of a positive surgical margin in the RS-RP compared to PUS-RP (25% vs 15%, p = 0.204). At one month follow-up for PUS-RP and RS-RP, there was no significant difference in the frequency of continent men (69.2% vs. 76.9%, p = 0.302). At 3-month follow-up for the two groups of patients, again, there was no significant difference in the frequency of continence for PUS-RP and RS-RP (86.2% vs 88%, p = 0.824). Patients who underwent RS-RP had similar rates of continence to those patients undergoing PUS-RP in the short-term post-operative period.

Intermediate-Term Oncologic Outcome Assessment for Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Comparing Retzius-Sparing with Standard Approach in a Randomized Control Cohort.

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.

Long-term outcomes of pelvic-fascia sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus standard technique: Superior urinary function and quality of life without compromising oncologic efficacy in a single-surgeon series.

BACKGROUND: Prostatic fascia-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (PFS-RARP) has improved short-term postoperative continence compared to standard prostatectomy (S-RARP) but long-term differences remain unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred two S-RARP followed by 239 PFS-RARPs were performed by a single surgeon. Univariate analyses were performed with t-test, χ2, Wilcoxon rank sum, Fisher exact, and analysis of variance (ANOVA). Regression models analyzed associates of EPIC-CP scores and oncologic outcomes. Cox proportional hazards modeling assessed postoperative continence. Primary outcomes included patient-reported urinary incontinence (UI) via EPIC-CP and continence rates. Secondary outcomes included EPIC-CP scores, positive surgical margins (PSM), and biochemical recurrence (BCR). Perioperative outcomes and time to continence were measured. RESULTS: Median follow-up for PFS-RARP vs. S-RARP was 26 vs. 65 months. PFS-RARP demonstrated improved EPIC-CP UI and total scores at 24 months. On multivariate analysis, PFS-RARP was associated with improved EPIC-CP UI and total scores through 18 months, but not with PSM or BCR. PFS-RARP had a 39% and 66% reduced risk of incontinence using 0 and 0 to 1 pad-use definitions (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39 - 0.95; HR:0.34, 95% CI 0.16 - 0.76). Continence returned faster with PFS-RARP (0 PPD: 91.0 days vs. 261 days, P < 0.001; 0-1 PPD: 32.7 days vs. 171 days, P < 0.001). There were no differences in PSM (35% vs. 25%, P = 0.064). There were more anterior PSM in PFS-RARP vs. S-RARP (47% vs. 26% P = 0.035), but no differences in BCR (16% vs. 22% P = 0.241). CONCLUSIONS: PFS-RARP improves continence and patient-reported QOL up to 24 months postoperatively without compromising oncologic outcomes.

[Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with Retzius-Sparing approach vs. modified Frankfurt: comparison of results at 1 year of follow-up]. / Prostatectomía radical asistida por robot con abordaje Retzius-Sparing vs. Frankfurt modificado: comparación de resultados a 1 año de seguimiento.

Background: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has positioned itself as the approach of choice in the treatment of prostate cancer. Objective: To compare the outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using the Retzius-Sparing (RS) approach against the modified Frankfurt (MF) technique. Method: To describe the perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes of 13 patients with prostate cancer who underwent RS robotic radical prostatectomy compared to MF, evaluating pathological results, urinary continence, sexual function and oncological control in 1 year of follow-up. Results: The average age was 64 years in RS group vs. 61 years in MF group. The values of total prostate antigen were higher in the RS group (25 ng/dl) vs. MF group (11 ng/dl). The volume of gland in RS group was 40.62 ml vs. 63.33 ml in the RS group. All patients were bilaterally neuropreserved, being statistically significant in favor of MF group (p = 0.016). Positive surgical margins were higher in R-S group (38.4%) vs. MF group (33.3%). Conclusions: With RS the same tendency to urinary continence is observed, with a significant difference in erectile function in favor of MF. This preliminary study shows better impact on erectile function.

Antecedentes: La prostatectomía radical asistida por robot se ha posicionado como el abordaje de elección en el tratamiento del cáncer de próstata. Objetivo: Comparar los resultados de la prostatectomía radical asistida por robot utilizando el abordaje Retzius-Sparing (RS) contra el Frankfurt modificado (FM). Método: Se describen los desenlaces perioperatorios, funcionales y oncológicos de 13 pacientes con cáncer de próstata que fueron llevados a prostatectomía radical robótica con RS, en comparación con FM, y se evalúan los resultados patológicos, continencia urinaria, función sexual y control oncológico a 1 año de seguimiento. Resultados: La media de edad fue de 64 años en el grupo RS y de 61 años en el grupo FM. Los valores de antígeno prostático total fueron mayores en el grupo RS (25 ng/dl) que en el FM (11 ng/dl). El volumen de la glándula fue menor en el grupo RS (40.62 ml) que en el FM (63.33 ml). Todos los pacientes fueron neuropreservados bilateralmente, siendo la diferencia estadísticamente significativa a favor de FM (p = 0.016). Los márgenes quirúrgicos positivos fueron mayores en el grupo RS (38.4%) que en el FM (33.3%). Conclusiones: Con RS se observa la misma tendencia a la continencia urinaria, con diferencia significativa en la función eréctil a favor de FM. Este estudio preliminar muestra mejor impacto en la función eréctil.

Retzius-Sparing Robotic-Assisted Prostatectomy: Technical Challenges for Surgeons and Key Prospective Refinements.

Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is the gold standard for localized prostate cancer. Several RARP approaches were developed and described over the years, aimed at improving oncological and functional outcomes. In 2010, Galfano et al described a new RARP technique, known as Retzius-sparing RARP (RS-RARP), a posterior approach through the Douglas space that spares the anterior support structures involved with urinary continence and sexual potency. This approach has been used increasingly in many centers around the world comparing its results with those of the most used standard anterior approach. Several randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses demonstrated an important advantage relative to standard anterior RARP in terms of early urinary continence recovery, with comparable perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes. Several surgeons are concerned regarding RS-RARP because it appears to increase the risk of positive surgical margins (PSMs). However, this statement is based on low-certainty evidence. Indeed, the available studies compared the results of surgeons who had an initial experience with posterior RARP with those who had a solid experience with anterior RARP. Recent evidence strongly suggests that RS-RARP is feasible and safe not only in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patient but also in challenging scenario such as high-risk setting, salvage prostatectomy and after transurethral resection of the prostate.