Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Urology
Published in: BMC Urology 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Prostate Cancer | Research article

Comparison of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy vs standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis

Authors: Yu-Li Jiang, Gao-Feng Zheng, Ze-Peng Jiang, Zhen-Li, Xie-Lai Zhou, Jin Zhou, Chun-Hua Ye, Kang-Er Wang

Published in: BMC Urology | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

To compare the postoperative continence and clinical outcomes of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RS-RALP) with non-RS RALP for patients with prostate cancer.

Methods

We searched PUBMED, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register from 1999 to 2019 for studies comparing RS-RALP to non-RS RALP for the treatment of prostate cancer. We used RevMan 5.2 to pool the data.

Results

A total of eight studies involving 1620 patients were included in our meta-analysis. No significant difference was found in positive surgical margins (PSM), bilateral nerve-sparing, postoperative hernia, complications, blood loss, or operative time. Postoperative continence was better with RS-RALP compared with non-RS RALP (OR = 1.02, OR: 2.86, 95% CI 1.94–4.20, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

RS-RALP had a better recovery of postoperative continence than non-RS RALP. The perioperative outcomes were comparable for the two methods.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Hu JC, Wang Q, Pashos CL, Lipsitz SR, Keating NL. Utilization and outcomes of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2278–84.CrossRef
2.
Patel VR, Abdul-Muhsin HM, Schatloff O, Coelho RF, Valero R, Ko YH, et al. Critical review of 'pentafecta' outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in high-volume centres. BJU Int. 2011;108:1007–17.CrossRef
3.
Cambio AJ, Evans CP. Minimising postoperative incontinence following radical prostatectomy: considerations and evidence. Eur Urol. 2006;50:903–13 discussion 13.CrossRef
4.
Myers RP, Cahill DR, Kay PA, Camp JJ, Devine RM, King BF, et al. Puboperineales: muscular boundaries of the male urogenital hiatus in 3D from magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol. 2000;164:1412–5.CrossRef
5.
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.CrossRef
6.
Galfano A, Di Trapani D, Sozzi F, Strada E, Petralia G, Bramerio M, et al. Beyond the learning curve of the Retzius-sparing approach for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncologic and functional results of the first 200 patients with >/= 1 year of follow-up. Eur Urol. 2013;64:974–80.CrossRef
7.
Freire MP, Weinberg AC, Lei Y, Soukup JR, Lipsitz SR, Prasad SM, et al. Anatomic bladder neck preservation during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of technique and outcomes. Eur Urol. 2009;56:972–80.CrossRef
8.
Lim SK, Kim KH, Shin TY, Han WK, Chung BH, Hong SJ, et al. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: combining the best of retropubic and perineal approaches. BJU Int. 2014;114:236–44.CrossRef
9.
Dirie NI, Pokhrel G, Guan W, Mumin MA, Yang J, Masau JF, et al. Is Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy associated with better functional and oncological outcomes? Literature review and meta-analysis. Asian J Urol. 2019;6:174–82.CrossRef
10.
Abu-Ghanem Y, Dotan Z, Ramon J, Zilberman DE. Retzius space reconstruction following transperitoneal laparoscopic robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: does it have any added value? J Robot Surg. 2018;12:475–9.CrossRef
11.
Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62:405–17.CrossRef
12.
Sayyid RK, Madi R. The untold advantages of Retzius-sparing robotic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2018;32:671–2.CrossRef
13.
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.CrossRef
14.
Chang KD, Abdel Raheem A, Santok GDR, Kim LHC, Lum TGH, Lee SH, et al. Anatomical Retzius-space preservation is associated with lower incidence of postoperative inguinal hernia development after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Hernia. 2017;21:555–61.CrossRef
15.
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.CrossRef
16.
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.CrossRef
17.
Asimakopoulos AD, Topazio L, De Angelis M, Agrò EF, Pastore AL, Fuschi A, et al. Retzius-sparing versus standard robotassisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective randomized comparison on immediate continence rates. Surg Endosc. 2019;33:2187–96.
18.
Chang LW, Hung SC, Hu JC, Chiu KY. Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy associated with less bladder neck descent and better early continence outcome. Anticancer Res. 2018;38:345–51.PubMed
19.
Santok GD, Abdel Raheem A, Kim LH, Chang K, Lum TG, Chung BH, et al. Perioperative and short-term outcomes of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy stratified by gland size. BJU Int. 2017;119:135–41.CrossRef
20.
Ikarashi D, Kato Y, Kanehira M, Takata R, Ito A, Onoda M, et al. Appropriate preoperative membranous urethral length predicts recovery of urinary continence after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. World J Surg Oncol. 2018;16:224.CrossRef
21.
Porpiglia F, Bertolo R, Manfredi M, De Luca S, Checcucci E, Morra I, et al. Total anatomical reconstruction during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: implications on early recovery of urinary continence. Eur Urol. 2016;69:485–95.CrossRef
22.
Patel VR, Coelho RF, Palmer KJ, Rocco B. Periurethral suspension stitch during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of the technique and continence outcomes. Eur Urol. 2009;56:472–8.CrossRef
23.
Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, Badani KK, Fumo M, Bhandari M, et al. Vattikuti institute prostatectomy: contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol. 2007;51:648–57 discussion 57-8.CrossRef
24.
Walsh PC. Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique. J Urol. 1998;160:2418–24.CrossRef
25.
Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S, Ahlering TE, Carroll PR, Graefen M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62:382–404.CrossRef
26.
Qin H, Qiu X, Ma H, Xu L, Xu L, Li X, et al. Predictors for immediate recovery of continence following Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a case-control study. Int Urol Nephrol. 2019;51:825–30.CrossRef
27.
Matsubara A, Yoneda T, Nakamoto T, Maruyama S, Koda S, Goto K, et al. Inguinal hernia after radical perineal prostatectomy: comparison with the retropubic approach. Urology. 2007;70:1152–6.CrossRef
28.
Nielsen ME, Walsh PC. Systematic detection and repair of subclinical inguinal hernias at radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 2005;66:1034–7.CrossRef
29.
Lodding P, Bergdahl C, Nyberg M, Pileblad E, Stranne J, Hugosson J. Inguinal hernia after radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a study of incidence and risk factors in comparison to no operation and lymphadenectomy. J Urol. 2001;166:964–7.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparison of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy vs standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis
Authors
Yu-Li Jiang
Gao-Feng Zheng
Ze-Peng Jiang
Zhen-Li
Xie-Lai Zhou
Jin Zhou
Chun-Hua Ye
Kang-Er Wang
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Urology / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2490
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-020-00685-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Urology 1/2020 Go to the issue

Research article

A modified single-armed microsurgical vasoepididymostomy for epididymal obstructive azoospermia: intraoperative choice and postoperative consideration

Research article

8q24 clear cell renal cell carcinoma germline variant is associated with VHL mutation status and clinical aggressiveness

Research article

Presepsin and procalcitonin as predictors of sepsis based on the new Sepsis-3 definitions in obstructive acute pyelonephritis

Research article

Knockdown of TRPM7 prevents tumor growth, migration, and invasion through the Src, Akt, and JNK pathway in bladder cancer

Research article

Impact of sarcomatoid differentiation and rhabdoid differentiation on prognosis for renal cell carcinoma with vena caval tumour thrombus treated surgically

Research article

Sexual dysfunction in women with multiple sclerosis: prevalence and impact on quality of life