Pd27-10 an intermediate-term oncological assessment comparing the retzius-sparing robot assisted radical prostatectomy to the standard approach in a randomized control cohort

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023PD27-10 AN INTERMEDIATE-TERM ONCOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT COMPARING THE RETZIUS-SPARING ROBOT ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY TO THE STANDARD APPROACH IN A RANDOMIZED CONTROL COHORT Mohit Butaney, Ghassan Barayan, Deepansh Dalela, Sohrab Arora, Alison Levy, Firas Abdollah, James Peabody, Craig Rogers, Mani Menon, and Wooju Jeong Mohit ButaneyMohit Butaney More articles by this author , Ghassan BarayanGhassan Barayan More articles by this author , Deepansh DalelaDeepansh Dalela More articles by this author , Sohrab AroraSohrab Arora More articles by this author , Alison LevyAlison Levy More articles by this author , Firas AbdollahFiras Abdollah More articles by this author , James PeabodyJames Peabody More articles by this author , Craig RogersCraig Rogers More articles by this author , Mani MenonMani Menon More articles by this author , and Wooju JeongWooju Jeong More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003305.10AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Retzius sparing prostatectomy is promoted with the early continence result, but criticized for higher positive surgical margin. The long-term oncological outcome is still unknown. In this study, we aimed to compare the intermediate-term oncologic outcomes of these two approaches in a patient cohort treated as part of a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: A total of 120 patients were previously randomized equally to receive retzius sparing (RS-RARP) versus standard robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (S-RARP) between January 2015 to April 2016. Baseline, surgical, and pathological characteristics as well as oncologic outcomes were assessed. The analysis was done based on the treatment received. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients underwent S-RARP while 57 patients underwent RS-RARP. There was no statistically significant difference in the baseline nor surgical characteristics. The median follow up was 71.24 (IQR 59.75 - 75.75). There were more pathological T3 diseases in RS-RARP. There was no significant difference in the positive margin status nor the biochemical recurrence rate among both groups. After S-RARP and RS-RARP, 6 and 10 patients had biochemical recurrence and the 5 years biochemical recurrence free survival were 91% and 85%, respectively. (p=0.21). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, there was no difference in biochemical recurrence in the patients who received either technique. Further multi-institutional studies with a larger sample size and longer follow-up are required. Source of Funding: None © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e745 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Mohit Butaney More articles by this author Ghassan Barayan More articles by this author Deepansh Dalela More articles by this author Sohrab Arora More articles by this author Alison Levy More articles by this author Firas Abdollah More articles by this author James Peabody More articles by this author Craig Rogers More articles by this author Mani Menon More articles by this author Wooju Jeong More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...