Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 15, 2026
Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
Published on: May 19, 2022
Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with a pathologic prostate specimen weight ≥100 grams versus ≤50
Apostolos P Labanaris1, Vahudin Zugor, Jorn H Witt
1Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, Prostate Center Northwest, St. Antonius Hospital, Gronau, Germany. labanaris @ web.de
Introduction:
The objective of this study is to evaluate the surgical, oncological and short-term functional outcomes in patients with a pathologic prostate specimen weight ≥100 g versus patients with a pathologic prostate specimen weight ≤50 g undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).
Patients And Methods:
The records of 4,000 men who underwent RARP from February 2006 to April 2012 were reviewed retrospectively. A total of 185 men had a pathologic prostate specimen weight ≥100 g (group A). A matched pairs analysis was performed using our database to identify men with a pathologic prostate specimen weight ≤50 g but with equivalent clinicopathologic characteristics to serve as the control group (group B).
Results:
Our results indicated that although the intraoperative results were more than satisfying in patients with large glands, there is a significant increase in blood loss, operative time needed, increased need for bladder neck reconstruction as well as an increase in intraoperative complications. Nevertheless, patients with large glands exhibit less aggressive tumors, less positive surgical margins and a lower incidence of biochemical recurrence. Regarding functional outcomes, patients with larger glands had no difference regarding continence rates when compared to patients with smaller glands but exhibited significantly lower potency rates.
Conclusions:
Although RARP in patients with a pathologic prostate specimen weight ≥100 g is technically challenging, in experienced hands it can be considered a safe procedure with excellent surgical, oncological and functional outcomes. Nevertheless, this conclusion is limited, in that it is from a single institution with a large case volume and may not be reflective of outcomes at centers with smaller volumes and less experience.
