Evidence Hub

Retzius-sparing Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Facilitates Early Continence Regardless of Neurovascular Bundle Sparing

Liao PC, Hung SC, Hu JC, Chiu KY

Anticancer research, 2020

133 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIM: Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has had better results in early continence rate and comparable oncological safety compared to the retropubic approach. However, the role the neurovascular bundle (NVB) sparing plays in the rate of early continence after catheter removal remains unclear. In this study, we sought to compare the early continence rate between Retzius-sparing RARP and the retropubic approach RARP to assess whether NVB sparing affects the continence rate in patients with prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective case series of 133 patients who underwent RARP from 2004 to 2017. 92 patients underwent retropubic RARP and 41 patents underwent Retzius-sparing RARP. All procedures were performed by a single surgical team in a single institution. Baseline patient characteristics were recorded and analyzed. Continence results and oncological outcomes were compared between the two groups. Continence outcome of Retzius-sparing RARP with NVB sparing was also analyzed.

RESULTS: No differences in age, prostate size, pathology T stage, PSA, and NVB sparing were found between the two groups. The oncological results including surgical margin and biochemical recurrence rate at one year showed no difference between the two groups. With respect to immediate continence results, the Retzius-sparing group showed a better continence result compared to the retropubic approach (75.6% vs. 26.1 %, respectively, p<0.001) after…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 133 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free