133
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Multicentric comparative analysis of Retzius versus Retzius sparing robotic assisted simple prostatectomy in the management of large prostate glands

, , , , , , , , & ORCID Icon show all
Pages 119-125 | Received 21 Sep 2021, Accepted 02 Feb 2022, Published online: 18 Feb 2022
 

Abstract

Aim

Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) is a minimally invasive alternative to open simple prostatectomy in the management of patients with large prostate glands suffering from moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Our study aimed to evaluate two transvesical robotic approaches in order to compare functional outcomes and postoperative complications.

Materials and methods

Clinical data from 111 consecutive patients from three tertiary robotic centers were retrospectively collected. Patients were divided into two groups depending on the surgical approach: 58 Retzius sparing and 53 Retzius approach RASP. We evaluated peri-operative outcomes (operating time, blood loss, transfusion rate, length of hospital stay), as well as intra-operative and early complications using a Clavien Dindo scale. Fisher’s exact test, chi-square test and Mann–Whitney U test were applied for statistical analyses. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Neither subgroup differed significantly in age (p = 0.104), Charlson comorbidity index (p = 0.088) or prostate volume (p = 0.507), total IPSS score (0.763) and Qmax (p = 0.651). Total complication rates were lower for the Retzius approach subgroup (19 vs 11.9%) without reaching statistical significance in multivariate analysis (HR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.17 − 8.44, p = 0.84). No significant differences based on IPSS total score and Qmax could be observed between the two subgroups during follow-up.

Conclusions

Both RASP approaches provide similar results in terms of functional outcomes and present a good safety profile in the management of large prostatic adenomas. Larger trials are needed in order to establish the indications for each robotic technique.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The present study is a retrospective one; for this type of study formal consent is not required.

Author contributions

Study conception and design: Surcel, Labanaris, Zugor. Sinescu, Gandaglia, A. Kretschmer, Mirvald

Acquisition of data: Najjar, Labanaris, Zugor, Kajaia, Heidegger, Kretschmer, Mirvald

Analysis and interpretation of data: Surcel, Labanaris, Heidegger, Gandaglia, Kretschmer, C. Mirvald

Drafting of manuscript: Surcel, Najjar, Labanaris, Kajaia, Heidegger, Sinescu, Gandaglia, Kretschmer, Mirvald

Critical revision: Surcel, Zugor, Heidegger, Sinescu, Gandaglia, Kretschmer, Mirvald

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.