ORIGINAL ARTICLE   Free access

Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2020 October;72(5):586-94

DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03830-8

Copyright © 2020 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparative study with 19-month follow-up

Ali ABDEL RAHEEM ^{1, 2}, Ayman HAGRAS ¹, Ahmed GHAITH¹, Mohamed J. ALENZI ³, Ahmed ELGHIATY ¹, Tarek GAMEEL ¹, Ibrahim ALOWIDAH ², Won S. HAM ⁴, Young D. CHOI ⁴, Abdel H. EL-BAHNASY ¹, Adel OMAR ¹, Mohamed EL-BENDARY ¹, Koon H. RHA ⁴ ✉

¹ Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt; ² Department of Urology, King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; ³ Department of Urology, Al Jouf University, Al Jouf, Saudi Arabia; ⁴ Department of Urology, Urological Science Institute, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to compare the surgical outcomes of retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) and open retropubic radical prostatectomy (ORP).
METHODS: We included patients with clinically localized prostate cancer who underwent RS-RARP or ORP and met our inclusion criteria. We compared the perioperative, oncological, and continence outcomes between both surgical approaches. Continence function was assessed using the validated International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form. Continence was defined as using 0-1 safety pad per day. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) was defined as two consecutive rises in serum PSA more than 0.2 ng/mL. Events of local recurrence, distant metastasis, and cancer death were reported and compared using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.
RESULTS: Between 1 June 2013 and 1 October 1 2016, 184 men were enrolled, of whom 125 underwent RS-RARP and 59 underwent ORP. Baseline demographic and pathological characteristics were similar between both groups (P>0.05). Patients in RS-RARP group had significantly lower blood loss, fewer transfusion rates, lower VAS score, and shorter hospital stay than patients in ORP group (P<0.05). Major complications (≥grade 3b) did not differ between both groups (P=0.121). Positive surgical margins were 28.8% and 24.8% in ORP and RS-RARP, respectively (P=0.494). The BCR free-survival rates in ORP and RS-RARP at 1-year was 87.3% and 92.3%, respectively (Log-rank, P=0.740). At 1-, 6-, and 12-month after surgery, 42.4%, 79.7%, and 84.7% of men undergoing ORP were continent, compared with 72.8%, 90.4%, and 92% undergoing RS-RARP, respectively. Men in RS-RARP group achieved faster recovery of urinary continence compared to men in ORP group (Log-rank, P=0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: RS-RARP had better perioperative outcomes and faster recovery of urinary continence compared with ORP. Short-term oncological outcomes were comparable between both surgical approaches.

KEY WORDS: Prostatic neoplasms; Prostatectomy; Robotics