Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 30, 2026
Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
Published on: May 19, 2022
[How to present in a unique fashion the oncologic and functional results after radical prostatectomy]
Laurent Salomon1, Fabien Saint, Aristotelis G Anastasiadis
1Service d'Urologie, Hôpital Henri Mondor, AP-HP, EMI 03-37, 51, avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 94010 Créteil. laurent.salomon@hmn.ap-hop-paris.fr
Introduction:
The results of radical prostatectomy (cancer control, continence and sexual potency) are currently presented separately, while the success of this surgery depends on a combination of good cancer control with maintenance of continence and erections. We propose a score to jointly evaluate and report cancer control and functional results.
Methods:
The results of 205 radical prostatectomies were studied at one year. Cancer control was evaluated by PSA and continence and sexual potency were evaluated by a self-administered questionnaire. Each patient was attributed 0 or 4 points according to the presence or absence of biochemical progression (PSA > 0.2 ng/ml), 0 or 2 points according to the presence or absence of urinary incontinence (use of pads) and 0 or 1 point according to the presence or absence of impotence (no erections). The sum of these points provided a socre classifying the patient into 8 distinct categories, from 0 to 7, each corresponding to a specific status (from 0 (0 + 0 + 0): no cancer control-incontinence-impotence to 7 (4 + 2 + 1): cancer control-continence-sexual potency).
Results:
One year after the operation, 175 (85%) of patients had a PSA less than 0.2 ng/ml, 135 (65.8%) were continent and 64 (32.7%) reported erections. All patients with a score > or = 4 had good cancer control, wit no functional disorders for a score of 7 (4 + 2 + 1) (92%), no disorders of continence for a score of 6 (4 + 2 + 1) (31.5%), no disorders of erection for a score of 5 (4 + 0 + 1) (8.3%), or with incontinence and impotence for a score of 4 (4 + 0 + 0) (21.9%). All patients with a score < 4 had a PSA > 0.2 ng/ml, but with no functional disorders for a score for 3 (0 + 2 + 1) (2.4%), no incontinence for a score of 2 (0 + 2 + 0) (8.3%), and no impotence for a score of 1 (0 + 0 + 1) (1.9%). 1.9% of patients were incontinent, impotent and showed signs of biochemical progression (socre 0 = 0 + 0 + 0).
Conclusion:
This score allows analysis of the global (cancer control and functional) results of radical prostatectomy and would facilitate comparisons between various surgical techniques (type of approach, nerve-sparing techniques) and various centres.