The Comparison of Conventional and Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for Clinical, Pathological, and Oncological Outcomes

dc.contributor.authorKarsiyakali, Nejdet
dc.contributor.authorOzgen, Mahir Bulent
dc.contributor.authorOzveren, Bora
dc.contributor.authorDurak, Haydar
dc.contributor.authorSaglican, Yesim
dc.contributor.authorTurkeri, Levent
dc.date.accessioned2023-02-21T12:32:37Z
dc.date.available2023-02-21T12:32:37Z
dc.date.issued2022-01-01
dc.description.abstractObjective: This study aimed to assess and compare the conventional and Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (cRARP and RsRARP) in term of perioperative clinical, pathological, and oncological outcomes. Materials and Methods: This study included 238 consecutive male patients who underwent RARP between May 2008 and November 2020. RARP operations were performed by a single-surgeon. Patients were divided into groups according to the surgical approach and were statistically compared in terms of perioperative clinical, final pathological, and oncological outcomes. Results: The mean age of patients was 64 +/- 7 years. cRARP was performed in 134 (56.3\%) patients, whereas RsRARP in 104 (43.7\%). The frequency of patients with the American Society of Anesthesiologists Class-2 score was higher in the RsRARP group (p<0.001). The median surgery duration was 300 (270-360) min. The median surgery duration was shorter in RsRARP group (290 vs. 330 minute) (p<0.001). No difference was found between the groups in terms of estimated blood loss and postoperative complication rates (p=0.112 and p=0.182, respectively). No difference was found between the groups when they were compared for surgical margin positivity (p=0.453). Although not statistically significant, the frequency of surgical margin positivity with pT3a/pT3b disease was higher in patients who underwent cRARP (p=0.412 and p=0.261, respectively). At a median follow-up of 13 (6-36) months, no difference was found between the groups in terms of biochemical recurrence at months-3,-6,-9,-12,-18,-24, and-30, respectively (p>0.05, for each). Conclusion: RsRARP allows a safe operation with a shorter surgical time and similar surgical margin positivity, oncological outcomes, and complication rates compared to cRARP.
dc.description.issue1
dc.description.issueMAR
dc.description.pages1-8
dc.description.volume9
dc.identifier.doi10.4274/jus.galenos.2021.2021.0048
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11443/1183
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.4274/jus.galenos.2021.2021.0048
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000768782200001
dc.publisherGALENOS YAYINCILIK
dc.relation.ispartofJOURNAL OF UROLOGICAL SURGERY
dc.subjectRetzius-sparing
dc.subjectrobot-assisted radical prostatectomy
dc.subjectradical prostatectomy
dc.subjectrobotics
dc.subjectprostate cancer
dc.titleThe Comparison of Conventional and Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for Clinical, Pathological, and Oncological Outcomes
dc.typeArticle

Files

Collections