Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 6, 2026
Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
Published on: May 19, 2022
[Comparison of initial results with robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical
Hideo Otsuki1, Yoshitaka Kuwahara, Kenzo Nakamura
1Department of Urology, Nagakubo Hospital. hideotsuki2004@hotmail.com
Objective:
To investigate the superiority in 2 radical prostatectomies, we compared the initial results of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) to those of retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) performed during the same period at Nagakubo hospital.
Patients And Methods:
The study was conducted on a total of 160 patients having undergone radical prostatectomy from April 2009 to March 2012 (92 patients with RARP and 68 with RRP). We investigated surgical stress, cancer control, functional outcomes and complications in both groups.
Results:
Surgical stress; operation time was significantly shorter with RRP; however, blood loss and serum total protein loss were significantly less with RARP. White blood cell count at 2 days after surgery was significantly less with RARP. The rates of analgesic use and SIRS were similar. Although the date on which taking solid meals resumed did not differ, the duration of indwelling urethral catheter and admission period were significantly shorter with RARP. Cancer control; the rates of positive surgical margin were 27.2% and 19.1% with RARP and RRP, respectively (p = 0.24), and biochemical recurrence was seen in 12.0% and 19.1% with RARP and RRP, respectively (p = 0.73), which were not significantly different. Continence; urinary continence outcomes with RARP and RRP were 17% and 4% for urinary continence at discharge (p = 0.01), 1.8 and 3.3 months for no more than one pad per day (p < 0.01), and 4.3 and 6.2 months for pad free (p = 0.03), respectively. Sexual function; erection recovery within 6 mo was only observed with RARP; however, overall recovery rate of erection was 65% and 75% with RARP and RRP, respectively (p = 0.69).
Complications:
1 case with a rectal injury was seen in both groups, but complication rates were 8.7% and 16.2% with RARP and RRP, respectively (p = 0.22).
Conclusion:
In spite of our initial experience of RARP, surgical stress and complications with RARP were considered to be superior to that with RRP. Cancer control and sexual function showed no significant difference between RARP and RRP, however, urinary continence outcome is significantly superior with RARP. Our data suggest that treatment outcome after initial experience with RARP is not inferior to that with RRP, and better results are expected by improving surgical techniques.
