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.

Surgical and functional outcomes of Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus conventional robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer. Are outcomes worth it? Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Radical prostatectomy is the standard of care for prostate cancer. Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) is being widely adopted due to positive functional outcomes compared to conventional robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (c-RARP). Concerns regarding potency, oncological outcomes, and learning curve are still a matter of debate.

METHODS

Following Preferred Instrument for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines and PROSPERO registration CRD42023398724, a systematic review was performed in February 2023 on RS-RARP compared to conventional c-RARP. Outcomes of interest were continence recovery, potency, positive surgical margins (PSM), biochemical recurrence (BCR), estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), operation time and complications. Data were analyzed using R version 4.2.2.

RESULTS

A total of 17 studies were included, totaling 2751 patients, out of which 1221 underwent RS-RARP and 1530 underwent c-RARP. Continence was analyzed using two definitions: zero pad and one safety pad. Cumulative analysis showed with both definitions statistical difference in terms of continence recovery at 1 month (0 pad odds ratio [OR] = 4.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.32-15.77]; Safety pad OR = 13.19; 95% CI = [8.92-19.49]), as well as at 3 months (0 pad OR, 2.93; 95% CI = [1.57-5.46]; Safety pad OR = 5.31; 95% CI = [1.33-21.13]). Continence recovery at 12 months was higher in the one safety pad group after RS-RARP (OR = 4.37; 95% CI = [1.97-9.73]). The meta-analysis revealed that overall PSM rates without pathologic stage classification were not different following RS-RARP (OR = 1.13; 95% CI = [0.96-1.33]. Analysis according to the tumor stage revealed PSM rates in pT2 and pT3 tumors are not different following RS-RARP compared to c-RARP (OR = 1.46; 95% CI = [0.84-2.55]) and (OR = 1.41; 95% CI = [0.93-2.13]), respectively. No difference in potency at 12 months (OR = 0.98; 95% CI = [0.69-1.41], BCR at 12 months (OR = 0.99; 95% CI = [0.46-2.16]), EBL (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.01; 95% CI = [-0.31 to 0.29]), LOS (SMD = -0.01; 95% CI = [-0.48 to 0.45]), operation time (SMD = -0.14; 95% CI = [-0.41 to 0.12]) or complications (OR = 0.9; 95% CI = [0.62-1.29]) were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that RS-RARP is safe and feasible. Faster continence recovery rate is seen after RS-RARP. Potency outcomes appear to be similar. PSM rates are not different following RS-RARP regardless of pathologic stage. Further quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Comparison of Early Urinary Continence, Oncological Outcomes, and Postoperative Complications in Retzius-Sparing and Standard Approach Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Background: The aim of the study is to compare the results of early urinary continence (UC), pathological results, console time (CT), and perioperative morbidity in patients who underwent transperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (TR-RARP) and Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) surgeries in the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Methods: A total of 120 patients, 60 (Group 1) with the TR-RALP technique and 60 (Group 2) with the RS-RALP technique, who had no statistical difference in their preoperative demographic data, were selected retrospectively. Perioperative and postoperative data, and continence rates in the first, third and sixth months were compared between the 2 groups. Results: There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of CT, hemoglobin change, and perioperative and postoperative data. There was a statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in favor of RS-RARP in terms of UC in the first and third months, whereas there was no statistically significant difference between the groups at month 6 (P = .001, P = .002, and P = .245, respectively). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that the RS-RARP technique is a promising approach to achieve early continence without compromising oncological principles and without increased complication rates.

Outcomes of Retzius-sparing versus conventional robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A KSER update series systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy(RARP) is widely used to surgically treat of localized prostate cancer. Among RARP, retzius-sparing techniques(RS-RARP) are implemented through douglas pouch, not the existing conventional approach(C-RARP). We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis including recent published papers.

Materials & methods

Systematic review was performed following the PRISMA guideline. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched up to August 2021. We conducted meta-analysis as follows; Participants, patients with biopsy-proven PCa; Interventions, Patients underwent C-RARP or RS-RALP; Outcomes, comparison of continence recovery rate, positive surgical margins(PSM), complication, operation time and estimated blood loss(EBL) included for analysis.

Results

Thirteen studies with a total of 2917 patients were included for meta-analysis. Among them, three were randomized controlled trials (RCT) studies and the rest were non-RCT studies. Incontinence was analyzed with zero pad and safety pad, respectively. There showed a statistically significant advantage for RS-RARP in terms of continence recovery at 1 month(0 pad; OR 0.28, (0.16–0.47), safety-pad; OR 0.12 (0.07–0.22), p<0.001), as well as at 3 months(0 pad; OR 0.31 (0.18–0.53), safety-pad; OR 0.23 (0.14–0.40) p<0.001), 6 months(0 pad; OR 0.29 (0.17–0.51), safety-pad; OR 0.13 (0.06–0.27), p<0.001). And after 12 months, RS-RARP showed better results only in the safety-pad(0 pad; OR 0.64 (0.35–1.18), p = 0.15, safety-pad; OR 0.12 (0.04–0.36), p<0.001). In PSM, there was no statistical difference between two group at overall stage, but RS-RARP was observed to be higher than C-RARP in pT3 subgroup analysis(OR 0.74 (0.55–0.99), p = 0.047) (Fig 1). Whereas, there was no significant difference between the two groups in complication, operation time, and EBL.

Conclusions

Our analysis showed that RS-RARP is superior about early continence recovery than C-RARP. However, RS-RARP showed relatively high PSM in locally advanced PCa of pT3 or above. Therefore, although RS-RARP has few advantages about functional outcomes, we think that caution should be exercised when approaching patients with high-risk local diseases.

Comparison of Retzius-sparing and conventional robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy regarding continence and sexual function: an updated meta-analysis

ABSTACT

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing C-RARP and RS-RARP have reported different results and the choice between the two operation methods remains controversia.

METHODS

We present the meta-analysis on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. The meta-analysis was carried out using Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom) and Stata SE 14.0. The mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to describe the results of continuous data; odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI were used to describe dichotomous data. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis revealed that RS-RARP had a statistically significant advantage in terms of continence recovery immediately after operation (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.20-0.77; P = 0.007) (Fig. 2a), after 1 month (OR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.10-0.29; P < 0.00001) (Fig. 2b), after 3 months (OR: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.09-0.36; P < 0.00001) (Fig. 2c), after 6 months (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.15-0.46; P < 0.00001) (Fig. 2d) and after 12 months (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.28-0.89; P = 0.02) (Fig. 2e).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis found that RS-RARP had better postoperative continence recovery than C-RARP, while sexual function recovery rates were not significantly different. There were also no significant differences in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of stay, positive margin rate and complications.

Comparison of Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy vs. Conventional Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: An Up-to-Date Meta-Analysis

Background: The Retzius space-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) has shown better results in urinary continence, but its efficacy and safety compared to conventional robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (c-RARP) remain controversial.

Material and Methods: A research was conducted in Medline via PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science up to January 4, 2021, to identify studies comparing RS-RARP to c-RARP. We used RevMan 5.3 and STATA 14.0 for meta-analysis.

Results: A total of 14 studies involving 3,129 participants were included. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in positive surgical margins (PSMs), but the RS-RARP group had significantly higher PSM rates in the anterior site [odds ratio (OR) = 2.25, 95% CI: 1.22–4.16, P = 0.01]. Postoperative continence in RS-RARP group at 1 month (OR = 5.72, 95% CI: 3.56–9.19, P < 0.01), 3 months (OR = 6.44, 95% CI: 4.50–9.22, P < 0.01), 6 months (OR = 8.68, 95% CI: 4.01–18.82, P < 0.01), and 12 months (OR = 2.37, 95% CI: 1.20–4.70, P = 0.01) was significantly better than that in the c-RARP group. In addition, the RS-RARP group had a shorter console time (mean difference = −16.28, 95% CI: −27.04 to −5.53, P = 0.003) and a lower incidence of hernia (OR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.19–0.67, P = 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in estimated blood loss, pelvic lymph node dissection rate, postoperative complications, 1-year-biochemical recurrence rate, and postoperative sexual function.

Conclusions: Compared with c-RARP, RS-RARP showed better recovery of continence, shorter console time, and lower incidence of hernia. Although there was no significant difference in overall PSM, we suggest that the surgeon should be more careful if the lesion is in the anterior prostate.

Comparing Revo-i and da Vinci in Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a preliminary propensity score analysis of outcomes

PURPOSE

. This study aims to compare perioperative and oncologic outcomes between matched cohorts of localized Prostate cancer (PCa) operated on by the same surgeon using the DaVinci Si robot and the Revo-i robot.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Non-metastatic prostate cancer patients undergoing Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) from January 2016 to December 2020 were matched one-to-one (33:33) to DaVinci Si controls using nearest neighbor propensity score matching according to the following covariates: age, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score, body mass index, previous abdominal and endoscopic surgery, pre-operative prostate specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume, ISUP grade group, tumor stage, and need for pelvic lymphadenectomy. Outcomes of interest were estimated blood loss, length-of-stay, complication rate, operative times, positive surgical margins, and biochemical recurrence at six months.

RESULTS

Both cohorts were similar in estimated blood loss, rate of margin positivity, and rate of complications. Length of stay was significantly shorter with the Revo-i cohort. The DaVinci showed faster console, suture, total operation times. Positive margin rate and biochemical recurrence at six months were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Despite the longer suture, console, and operative time compared to the da Vinci in the authors' institution, the Revo-i robot-assisted radical prostatectomy had equivalent short-term oncologic outcomes with the da Vinci standard.

Impact of Retzius-sparing Versus Standard Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy on Penile Shortening, Peyronie's Disease, and Inguinal Hernia Sequelae

Background

Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) has improved urinary function compared with standard robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (S-RARP). As RS-RARP spares the dorsal vascular complex, pelvic fascia, and anterior abdominal fascia, it may also lower the incidence of “neglected” postprostatectomy sequelae such as penile shortening, Peyronie’s disease, and inguinal hernias.

Objective

To determine whether there are patient-perceived differences in penile shortening, Peyronie’s disease, and inguinal hernia rates among men undergoing RS-RARP versus S-RARP.

Design, setting, and participants

Researchers uninvolved in clinical care and blinded to surgical approach surveyed 60 RS-RARP versus 57 S-RARP men with validated patient-reported items to assess penile shortening, Peyronie’s disease, and inguinal hernia sequelae following surgery.

Intervention

RS-RARP versus S-RARP.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Univariate differences between the two cohorts were analyzed using Student t test. Logistic regression was used to analyze variables associated with postoperative penile shortening. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the risk of developing Peyronie’s disease and inguinal hernia postoperatively.

Results and limitations

RS-RARP was associated with less patient-reported penile shortening (41.7% vs 64.9%, p = 0.012), Peyronie’s disease (0% vs 8.7%, p = 0.020), and inguinal hernia (0.0% vs 13.0%, p = 0.004). In adjusted analyses, RS-RARP (odds ratio [OR] 0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09–0.63, p = 0.004) was associated with lower odds of penile shortening, while a higher body mass index was associated with increased odds of penile shortening (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01–1.26, p = 0.037). RS-RARP was not associated with a decreased risk of Peyronie’s disease on Cox proportion hazard model; however, these models are limited due to a limited number of events in our cohort. Limitations include retrospective design, patient-reported outcomes, and small cohorts.

Conclusions

RS-RARP is associated with less patient-reported penile shortening and may decrease the risk of Peyronie’s disease and postoperative inguinal hernia development. These new findings add to research, showing improved urinary continence and quality of life following RS-RARP; however, a prospective study is needed to validate these findings.

Patient summary

Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) is an evolving surgical technique for prostate cancer treatment, which has shown improved postoperative urinary control compared with the standard technique, likely due to preservation of natural pelvic anatomy. Our findings suggest that the preservation of normal pelvic anatomy during RS-RARP may also reduce the risk of postprostatectomy penile shortening, Peyronie’s disease, and inguinal hernia.

Retzius-sparing versus standard robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is widely used to surgically treat clinically localized prostate cancer. It is typically performed using an approach (standard RALP) that mimics open retropubic prostatectomy by dissecting the so-called space of Retzius anterior to the bladder. An alternative, Retzius-sparing (or posterior approach) RALP (RS-RALP) has been described, which is reported to have better continence outcomes but may be associated with a higher risk of incomplete resection and positive surgical margins (PSM).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of RS-RALP compared to standard RALP for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, trials registries, other sources of the grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to June 2020. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials where participants were randomized to RS-RALP or standard RALP for clinically localized prostate cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently classified and abstracted data from the included studies. Primary outcomes were: urinary continence recovery within one week after catheter removal, at three months after surgery, and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: urinary continence recovery six and 12 months after surgery, potency recovery 12 months after surgery, positive surgical margins (PSM), biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS), and urinary and sexual function quality of life. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search identified six records of five unique randomized controlled trials, of which two were published studies, one was in press, and two were abstract proceedings. There were 571 randomized participants, of whom 502 completed the trials. Mean age of participants was 64.6 years and mean prostate-specific antigen was 6.9 ng/mL. About 54.2% of participants had cT1c disease, 38.6% had cT2a-b disease, and 7.1 % had cT2c disease. Primary outcomes RS-RALP probably improves continence within one week after catheter removal (risk ratio (RR) 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 2.14; I² = 0%; studies = 4; participants = 410; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming 335 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 248 more men per 1000 (137 more to 382 more) reporting continence recovery. RS-RALP may increase continence at three months after surgery compared to standard RALP (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.68; I² = 86%; studies = 5; participants = 526; low-certainty evidence). Assuming 750 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 224 more men per 1000 (41 more to 462 more) reporting continence recovery. We are very uncertain about the effects of RS-RALP on serious adverse events compared to standard RALP (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.47 to 4.17; studies = 2; participants = 230; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes There is probably little to no difference in continence recovery at 12 months after surgery (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04; I² = 0%; studies = 2; participants = 222; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming 982 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 10 more men per 1000 (29 fewer to 39 more) reporting continence recovery.  We are very uncertain about the effect of RS-RALP on potency recovery 12 months after surgery (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.80; studies = 1; participants = 55; very low-certainty evidence).  RS-RALP may increase PSMs (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.20; I² = 0%; studies = 3; participants = 308; low-certainty evidence) indicating a higher risk for prostate cancer recurrence. Assuming 129 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP have positive margins, this corresponds to 123 more men per 1000 (25 more to 284 more) with PSMs. We are very uncertain about the effect of RS-RALP on BCRFS compared to standard RALP (hazard ratio (HR) 0.45, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.60; I² = 32%; studies = 2; participants = 218; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings of this review indicate that RS-RALP may result in better continence outcomes than standard RALP up to six months after surgery. Continence outcomes at 12 months may be similar. Downsides of RS-RALP may be higher positive margin rates. We are very uncertain about the effect on BCRFS and potency outcomes. Longer-term oncologic and functional outcomes are lacking, and no preplanned subgroup analyses could be performed to explore the observed heterogeneity. Surgeons should discuss these trade-offs and the limitations of the evidence with their patients when considering this approach.

Effects of Retzius sparing on robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of Retzius sparing (RS) for men undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RARP).

METHODS

We searched four electronic databases and reference lists of relevant studies for eligible research published before March 11, 2019. After quality assessment, eligible studies were synthesized for relevant outcomes, including positive surgical margin (PSM), continence, incontinence, complication, console time, and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Two randomized clinical trials and four observational studies were included in this study. Quantitative syntheses revealed significantly higher PSM rates in RS-RARP compared with conventional RARP (c-RARP) (odds ratio [OR] 1.68, p = 0.02). Furthermore, we found significantly higher PSM rates at the anterior site in RS-RARP compared with c-RARP (OR 4.34, p = 0.03) and significantly lower incontinence rates in RS-RARP in the first month (OR 0.30, p < 0.001) and 12th month (OR 0.25, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our syntheses revealed higher PSM rates in the RS-RARP group, especially in the anterior aspect. However, RS-RARP had superior functional outcome of urinary continence and lower console time than did c-RARP with equivalent complication rates. Thus, we suggest that operators pay more attention to making clear surgical margins if the lesion is in anterior prostate when performing RS-RARP.

Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy vs the standard approach: a systematic review and analysis of comparative outcomes

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the current evidence on Retzius-sparing (RS)-robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and to compare its oncological, peri-operative and functional outcomes with those of standard retropubic RARP (S-RARP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After establishing an a priori protocol, a systematic electronic literature search was conducted in January 2019 using the Medline (via PubMed), Embase (via Ovid) and Cochrane databases. The search strategy relied on the 'PICO' (Patient Intervention Comparison Outcome) criteria and article selection was carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Only studies reporting the oncological and functional outcomes of RARP (as determined by type of procedure [RS-RARP vs S-RARP]) were considered for inclusion. Risk of bias and study quality were assessed. Finally, peri-operative and functional outcomes were recorded and analysed.

RESULTS

A shorter operating time was associated with RS-RARP (weighted mean difference [WMD] 14.7 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] -28.25, 1.16; P = 0.03), whereas no significant difference was found in terms of estimated blood loss (WMD 1.45 mL, 95% CI -31.18, 34.08; P = 0.93). Also, no significant difference between the two groups was observed for overall (odds ratio [OR] 0.86, 95% CI 0.40, 1.85; P = 0.71) and major (Clavien >3; OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.30, 2.57) postoperative complications; however, the likelihood of positive surgical margins (PSMs) was lower for the S-RARP group (rate 15.2% vs 24%; OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.12, 2.60; P = 0.01). The cumulative analysis showed a statistically significant advantage for RS-RARP in terms of continence recovery at 1 month (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.16, 5.53; P = 0.02), as well as at 3 months (OR 3.86, 95% CI 2.23, 6.68; P < 0.001), 6 months (OR 3.61, 95% CI 1.88, 6.91; P = 0.001), and 12 months (OR 7.29, 95% CI 1.89, 28.13; P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis confirms that RS-RARP is a safe and feasible alternative to S-RARP. This novel approach may be associated with faster and higher recovery of continence, without increasing the risk of complications. One caveat might be the higher risk of PSMs, and this can be regarded as a current pitfall of the technique, probably related to an expected learning curve.

Retzius sparing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy vs. conventional robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Retzius sparing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy appears to have better continence rates when compared to conventional robotic assisted radical prostatectomy, however, concern with high positive surgical margin rates exist.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate evidence comparing functional and oncological outcomes of retzius sparing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy and conventional robotic assisted radical prostatectomy.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The systematic review was performed in accordance with the Cochrane guidelines and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). Bibliographic databases searched were PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane central register of controlled trials-CENTRAL (in The Cochrane library-issue 1, 2018). We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The search retrieved 137 references through electronic searches of various databases. Six were included in the review. RS-RALP was associated with better early continence rates (≤ 1 month) (moderate quality evidence) (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.27, 2.32, p 0.0005) and at 3 months (low quality evidence) (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.03, 1.88, p 0.03). Time to continence recovery, number of pads used and pad weight are better with RS-RALP. Based on very low quality evidence, RS-RALP did not alter 6 and 12 months continence rates. Based on very low quality evidence, RS-RALP did not alter T2 positive margin rates (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.91, 3.06, p 0.10) and T3 positive margin rates (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.68, 1.70, p = 0.75). Short-term biochemical free survival appears to be similar between the two approaches. Based on low-quality evidence, RS-RALP did not alter overall and major complication rates.

CONCLUSIONS

RS-RARP appears to have earlier continence recovery when compared to Con-RARP which does not come at a significant oncologic cost. Whilst there was a trend towards higher PSM rates with RS-RALP, this did not achieve statistical significance. Furthermore this trend appeared to be less pronounced with T3 disease, where the PSM rates are almost similar.

Is Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy associated with better functional and oncological outcomes? Literature review and meta-analysis

Objective

To evaluate the efficiency, safety and clinical outcomes of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) in comparison with the standard RARP.

Methods

A systematic search from Web of Science, PubMed, EMBase, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar was performed using the terms “Retzius-sparing”, “Bocciardi approach” and “robot-assisted radical prostatectomy”. Video articles and abstract papers for academic conferences were excluded. Meta-analysis of interested outcomes such as positive surgical margins (PSMs) and continence recovery was undertaken. A comprehensive literature review of all studies regarding Retzius-sparing (RS) approach was conducted and summarized.

Results

From 2010 to 2017, 11 original articles about RS-RARP approach were retrieved. Of that, only four studies comparing the RS-RARP approach to the conventional RARP were comparable for meta-analysis. Faster overall continence recovery within 1 month after the surgery was noted in the RS group (61% vs. 43%; p = 0.004). PSMs of pT2 and pT3 stages were not significantly different between the groups (10.0% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.39 and 13.1% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.56, respectively). Of all the studies, only one reported sexual recovery outcomes after RS treatment in which 40% of the participants achieved sexual intercourse within the first month.

Conclusion

Though more technically demanding than the conventional RARP, the RS technique is a safe and feasible approach. This meta-analysis and literature review indicates that RS technique, as opposed to the conventional approach, is associated with a faster continence recovery while PSMs were comparable between the two groups. The limitations of observational studies and the small data in our meta-analysis may prevent an ultimate conclusion. Future well-designed RCTs are needed to validate and confirm our findings.