Comparative analysis of early post-operative outcomes between retzius-sparing and anterior approach robotic radical prostatectomy for a single surgeon

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare intraoperative and early post-operative outcomes between retzius-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) versus standard approach for RARP (S-RARP). Patients and methods: All RARPs by a single surgeon were included and divided into two groups: (1) standard approach including combined anterior–posterior approach (S-RARP); (2) retzius-sparing posterior approach (RS-RARP). Allocation was based on prostate size and location of index lesion on MRI. Initial post-operative follow-up was at 6 weeks. Results: Overall, 169 RARPs were performed between March 2018 and October 2021: S-RARP = 99 versus RS-RARP = 70. There was no significant difference in pre-operative body mass index (BMI), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group and clinical T stage. Intraoperative differences were found in blood loss (300 versus 200 mL, p = 0.008), console time (180 versus 135 minutes, p < 0.001) favouring RS-RARP, with no differences in nerve-spare or lymph node dissection. Post-operatively, no difference was found in ISUP grade, pathological T stage, positive surgical margins, number of lymph nodes sampled, readmissions or complications. Gland size in the RS group was smaller (38 versus 29 g, p = 0.001). Early (6 weeks) post-op follow-up showed a significant difference between groups for both pad-free continence (35% versus 53%, p = 0.011) and social continence (79% versus 89%, p = 0.024), but no difference for erectile function recovery (27% versus 50% of baseline) and post-op PSA levels < 0.1 ng/mL (85% versus 93%). Conclusion: Even early in the learning curve, continence recovery, operative time and blood loss were significantly better for RS-RARP than S-RARP. Margin status and PSA levels are comparable to published literature for both groups. Standardised training in RS-RARP might help to improve the uptake of this novel technique. Level of evidence: 2.