Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Retzius-sparing vs. standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for clinically localised prostate cancer: a comparative study

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background

Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is not yet universally accepted due to still limited functional data and some concerns on oncological safety compared to the standard one. We assessed perioperative, pathological and early functional outcomes in patients with clinically localised prostate cancer treated with Retzius-sparing versus standard RARP.

Methods

A single-surgeon cohort of 207 consecutive patients undergoing RARP was analysed. A later study group of 102 patients receiving the Retzius-sparing approach was compared with an earlier control group of 105 patients receiving the standard one. Urinary continence recovery 1 week after catheter removal was the primary study outcome. Urinary continence recovery 1, 2, 3 and 6 months after catheter removal, potency recovery 6 months postoperatively, rate of perioperative complications and positive surgical margins were secondary study outcomes.

Results

Patients in the study group reported significantly higher urinary continence recovery rates 1 week (91.2% vs. 54.3%, p < 0.001), 1 month (92.2% vs. 66.7%, p < 0.001), 2 months (95.1% vs. 74.3%, p < 0.001), 3 months (96.1% vs. 83.8%, p = 0.01), but not 6 months (97% vs 90.5%, p = 0.09) after catheter removal compared to controls. Potency recovery rates 6 months after catheter removal were significantly higher in the study than the control group (68.2% vs 51.6%, p = 0.03). On multivariable analyses, the Retzius-sparing approach was an independent predictor of 1-week urinary continence recovery, but not of 6-month potency recovery. There were significant differences neither in perioperative complication rate (9.8% in the study vs. 14.3% in the control group, p = 0.28) nor in positive surgical margin rate (9.8% in the study vs. 8.6% in the control group, p = 0.75).

Conclusions

In a comparative study, we observed a significant improvement in immediate urinary continence, but not in early potency recovery, using the Retzius-sparing compared to the standard approach for RARP, with no increase in perioperative complication and positive surgical margin rate.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Data availability

The datasets created and analyzed in this study are not publicly available. Requests for data can be addressed to the corresponding author (GG).

References

  1. Martini A, Falagario UG, Villers A, Dell’Oglio P, Mazzone E, Autorino R, et al. Contemporary techniques of prostate dissection for robot-assisted prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2020;78:583–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris technique. J Urol. 2000;163:1643–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Checcucci E, Pecoraro A, De Cillis S, Manfredi M, Amparore D, Aimar R, et al. The importance of anatomical reconstruction for continence recovery after robot assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and pooled analysis from referral centers. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2021;73:165–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Galfano A, Ascione A, Grimaldi S, Petralia G, Strada E, Bocciardi AM. A new anatomic approach for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a feasibility study for completely intrafascial surgery. Eur Urol. 2010;58:457–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gragg P, Sellers CL. Twitter. Law Libr J. 2010;102:325–30.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Checcucci E, Veccia A, Fiori C, Amparore D, Manfredi M, Di Dio M, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Barakat B, Othman H, Gauger U, Wolff I, Hadaschik B, Rehme C. 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;8:1060–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Liu J, Zhang J, Yang Z, Liu Q, Zhang W, Qing Z, et al. Comparison of Retzius-sparing and conventional robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy regarding continence and sexual function: an updated meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022;25:47–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chung DY, Jung HD, Kim DK, Lee MH, Lee SW, Paick S, et al. Outcomes of Retzius-sparing versus conventional robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a KSER update series systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2022;17:e0268182.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Ficarra V, Gan M, Borghesi M, Zattoni F, Mottrie A. Posterior muscolofascial reconstruction incorporated into urethrovescical anastomosis during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2012;26:1542–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ficarra V, Rossanese M, Crestani A, Alario G, Mucciardi G, Isgrò A, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using the novel urethral fixation technique versus standard vesicourethral anastomosis. Eur Urol. 2021;79:530–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, Capitanio U, Gallina A, Suardi N, et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol. 2012;61:480–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280:969–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Avery K, Donovan J, Peters TJ, Shaw C, Gotoh M, Abrams P. ICIQ: a brief and robust measure for evaluating the symptoms and impact of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2004;23:322–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wei JT, Dunn RL, Litwin MS, Sandler HM, Sanda MG. Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology. 2000;56:899–905.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosen RC, Cappelleri JC, Smith MD, Lipsky J, Peña BM. Development and evaluation of an abridged, 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) as a diagnostic tool for erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res. 1999;11:319–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dalela D, Jeong W, Prasad MA, Sood A, Abdollah F, Diaz M, 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;72:677–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Menon M, Dalela D, Jamil M, Diaz M, Tallman C, Abdollah F, 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;199:1210–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Qiu X, Li Y, Chen M, Xu L, Guo S, Marra G, et al. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy improves early recovery of urinary continence: a randomized, controlled, single-blind trial with a 1-year follow-up. BJU Int. 2020;126:633–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Asimakopoulos AD, Topazio L, De Angelis M, Agrò EF, Pastore AL, Fuschi A, et al. Retzius-sparing versus standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective randomized comparison on immediate continence rates. Surg Endosc. 2018;33:2187–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Egan J, Marhamati S, Carvalho FLF, Davis M, O’Neill J, Lee H, 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;79:839–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sayyid RK, Simpson WG, Lu C, Terris MK, Klaassen Z, Madi R. Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a safe surgical technique with superior continence outcomes. J Endourol. 2017;31:1244–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Turkolmez K, Akpinar C, Kubilay E, Suer E. Retzius-Sparing vs modified anatomical structure preserving and Retzius-Repairing Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: a prospective randomized comparison on functional outcomes with a 1-year follow-up. J Endourol. 2022;36:1214–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Umari P, Eden C, Cahill D, Rizzo M, Eden D, Sooriakumaran P. Retzius-sparing versus standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a comparative prospective study of nearly 500 patients. J Urol. 2021;205:780–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Deng W, Jiang H, Liu X, Chen L, Liu W, Zhang C, et al. Transvesical Retzius-Sparing versus standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a retrospective propensity score-adjusted analysis. Front Oncol. 2021;11:687010.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Tahra A, Sen UT, Sobay R, İnkaya A, Kucuk EV, Boylu U. Comparison of Retzius-sparing versus standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Actas Urol Esp. 2022;46:293–300.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Stonier T, Simson N, Davis J, Challacombe B. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) vs standard RARP: it’s time for critical appraisal. BJU Int. 2019;123:5–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Galfano A, Secco S, Dell’Oglio P, Rha K, Eden C, Fransis K, et al. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: early learning curve experience in three continents. BJU Int. 2021;127:412–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gaetano Barresi Department of Human and Paediatric Pathology, Urologic Section, University of Messina, Messina, Italy

    Vincenzo Ficarra, Marta Rossanese, Manuel Gilante, Mauro Foti, Luciano Macchione & Giuseppe Mucciardi

  2. Gaetano Barresi Department of Human and Paediatric Pathology, Pathology Section, University of Messina, Messina, Italy

    Maurizio Martini

  3. Urology Unit, Santa Maria della Misericordia University Hospital, Udine, Italy

    Gianluca Giannarini

Authors
  1. Vincenzo Ficarra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marta Rossanese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manuel Gilante
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mauro Foti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Luciano Macchione
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Giuseppe Mucciardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Maurizio Martini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Gianluca Giannarini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualisation: VF. Data curation: MR, MG, MF, LM, GM, MM. Investigation: VF. Resources: VF. Formal Analysis: VF. Writing Original draft: VF. Writing Review & Editing: GG. Supervision: VF, GG.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gianluca Giannarini.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ficarra, V., Rossanese, M., Gilante, M. et al. Retzius-sparing vs. standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for clinically localised prostate cancer: a comparative study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-022-00625-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-022-00625-3

Search

Advanced search

Quick links