Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 30, 2026

Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
Published on: May 19, 2022
Radical prostatectomy performed via robotic, transperitoneal and extraperitoneoscopic approaches: functional and
Leonid Rapoport1, Ofer Yossepowitch2, Evgeniy Shpot1
1Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia.
Introduction:
Oncological remission along with high postoperative functionality [continence and erectile function (EF)] are the main aspects of prostate cancer (PCa) treatment. The aim of this study was to compare functional and oncological treatment results achieved after a nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (RP) via transperitoneal (TPRP), extraperitoneal (EPRP) and robot-assisted (RARP) approach.
Material And Methods:
From March 2015 to March 2016, 507 RP were performed at the Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health (Moscow, Russia). A total of 264 patients with localized (cТ1а-2с) prostate cancer [prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <20 ng/ml, Gleason score ≤7], intact prostate capsule (according to MRI), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) ≥19 and a life expectancy >10 years were included into the retrospective study. All the surgeries were performed by a single surgeon. The outcomes were evaluated after urethral catheter removal and 3-6-12 months after RP.
Results:
Nerve preservation (NP) was performed for 153 patients without significant distinctions in time (р = 0.064) and blood loss (р = 0.073). The International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form (ICIQ-SF) score was lower for NP: 9.23 ±6.59 and 3.86 ±5.38 after 3 and 12 months respectively compared with continence after RP without nerve preservation (NP): 14.27 ±5.1 vs. 6.15 ±4.76 (р <0.001). Continent was 52.2% vs. 83.3% vs. 81.8% in TPRP, RARP and EPRP groups; р <0.001. IIEF-5 scores were 14.67 ±9.4, 4.2 ±4.26 and 4.0 ±2.07 after RARP, TPRP and EPRP respectively (р = 0.002). After 12 months the PSA: TPRP = 0.11 ±0.19, RARP = 0.03 ±0.05 and EPRP = 0.53 ±1.87 ng/ml (р <0.001). Outcomes depend on surgical approach and was better in the RARP-group (AUC = 0.768 ±0.034 (CI 95% 0,701-0.834; р <0.001).
Conclusions:
We suggest RARP with NP as a method of choice for treatment of prostate cancer in patients interested in preservation of EF and quality of life in general.
More Related Videos
09:49Isolation of Adipose Derived Regenerative Cells for the Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction Following Radical Prostatectomy
Published on: December 28, 2021
12:34Robot-Assisted Radical Antegrade Modular Pancreatosplenectomy Including Resection and Reconstruction of the Spleno-Mesenteric Junction
Published on: January 3, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Performing a Simple Data Analysis using MS-Excel Function
SUM: This function calculates the total sum of a range of values. It's the foundation for aggregating data, essential for determining overall trends and totals in datasets.
AVERAGE: It computes the mean value of a given set of numbers, providing a quick insight into the central...
Predicting Reaction Outcomes
Radical Reactivity: Electrophilic Radicals
Radical Reactivity: Nucleophilic Radicals
Radicals
Outcomes of Glycolysis
Cellular respiration can occur aerobically (with oxygen) or anaerobically (without oxygen). In the presence of oxygen, cellular respiration starts with glycolysis and continues with pyruvate...