Surgical and functional outcomes of Retzius‐sparing robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy versus conventional robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy‐confirmed prostate cancer. Are outcomes worth it? Systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Radical prostatectomy is the standard of care for prostate cancer. Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) is being widely adopted due to positive functional outcomes compared to conventional robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (c-RARP). Concerns regarding potency, oncological outcomes, and learning curve are still a matter of debate. METHODS: Following Preferred Instrument for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines and PROSPERO registration CRD42023398724, a systematic review was performed in February 2023 on RS-RARP compared to conventional c-RARP. Outcomes of interest were continence recovery, potency, positive surgical margins (PSM), biochemical recurrence (BCR), estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), operation time and complications. Data were analyzed using R version 4.2.2. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies were included, totaling 2751 patients, out of which 1221 underwent RS-RARP and 1530 underwent c-RARP. Continence was analyzed using two definitions: zero pad and one safety pad. Cumulative analysis showed with both definitions statistical difference in terms of continence recovery at 1 month (0 pad odds ratio [OR] = 4.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.32-15.77]; Safety pad OR = 13.19; 95% CI = [8.92-19.49]), as well as at 3 months (0 pad OR, 2.93; 95% CI = [1.57-5.46]; Safety pad OR = 5.31; 95% CI = [1.33-21.13]). Continence recovery at 12 months was higher in the one safety pad group after RS-RARP (OR = 4.37; 95% CI = [1.97-9.73]). The meta-analysis revealed that overall PSM rates without pathologic stage classification were not different following RS-RARP (OR = 1.13; 95% CI = [0.96-1.33]. Analysis according to the tumor stage revealed PSM rates in pT2 and pT3 tumors are not different following RS-RARP compared to c-RARP (OR = 1.46; 95% CI = [0.84-2.55]) and (OR = 1.41; 95% CI = [0.93-2.13]), respectively. No difference in potency at 12 months (OR = 0.98; 95% CI = [0.69-1.41], BCR at 12 months (OR = 0.99; 95% CI = [0.46-2.16]), EBL (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.01; 95% CI = [-0.31 to 0.29]), LOS (SMD = -0.01; 95% CI = [-0.48 to 0.45]), operation time (SMD = -0.14; 95% CI = [-0.41 to 0.12]) or complications (OR = 0.9; 95% CI = [0.62-1.29]) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that RS-RARP is safe and feasible. Faster continence recovery rate is seen after RS-RARP. Potency outcomes appear to be similar. PSM rates are not different following RS-RARP regardless of pathologic stage. Further quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.