Mid- to Long-Term Urinary Continence Outcomes of Pelvic-Peritoneal Structure-Sparing Techniquein Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
Abstract
Objective
To evaluate the mid- to long-term effects of the pelvic-peritoneal structure-sparing (PPSS) technique, which aims to preserve the stability of pelvic floor structures, on urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).
Methods
This single-center retrospective cohort study included 82 patients who underwent RARP between October 2017 and May 2018, all operated on by the same surgeon. Patients were divided into a PPSS group (n = 53) and a non-PPSS group (n = 29). Standard RARP was performed in the non-PPSS group, whereas the PPSS group involved preservation of pelvic floor structures and cold-knife apical dissection for urethral function protection. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Follow-up lasted up to 7 years. Urinary continence was defined as the use of 0-1 pad per day and was assessed at 3, 6, 12, 24 months postoperatively and at the last follow-up (July 2025). Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression were used to compare continence recovery rates and identify influencing factors.
Results
The median follow-up duration was 1178 days (range: 1-2743 days). The PPSS group had significantly higher continence recovery rates at 3 and 6 months (71.6% and 75.4%) compared with the non-PPSS group (44.8% and 48.2%; P = 0.030 and P = 0.025, respectively), while no significant difference was observed at 12 months and thereafter. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that the PPSS technique (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.59, 95% CI: 1.39-4.81, P = 0.002) and age (HR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.91-0.97, P = 0.001) were independent predictors of continence recovery.
Conclusion
The PPSS technique improves early postoperative urinary continence without increasing the rate of positive surgical margins. Although it does not significantly enhance long-term continence, it may still contribute positively to patients' postoperative quality of life.
Keywords: Prostate cancer, Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, Pelvic-peritoneal structure, Urinary continence recovery, PPSS technique
Full Text:
PDFReferences
BERGENGREN O, PEKALA K R, MATSOUKAS K, et al. 2022 Update on prostate cancer epidemiology and risk factors-a systematic review. Eur Urol, 2023, 84(2): 191-206. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.04.021.
JIA Z, CHANG Y, WANG Y, et al. Sustainable functional urethral reconstruction: maximizing early continence recovery in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Asian J Urol, 2021, 8(1): 126-133. doi: 10.1016/j. ajur.2020.01.003.
WANG K, WANG L, MAN J, et al. Perioperative and functional outcomes of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy vs. conventional robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: evidence based on randomized-controlled trials. J Robot Surg, 2025, 19(1): 208. doi: 10.1007/s11701-025-02337-x.
BINDER J, KRAMER W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int, 2001, 87(4): 408-410. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x. 2001.00115.x.
YAXLEY J W, COUGHLIN G D, CHAMBERS S K, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet, 2016, 388(10049): 1057-1066. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30592-X.
WANG M C, ZHANG Y Y, YU S C, et al. An evidence-based analysis comparing two approaches of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the standard technique and Retzius-sparing technique. Natl Med J China, 2021, 101(15): 1083-1087. doi: 10.3760/cma.j. cn112137-20200902-02546.
HAKOZAKI K, TAKEDA T, YASUMIZU Y, et al. Predictors of urinary function recovery after laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Int Braz J Urol, 2023, 49(1): 50-60. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2022.0362.
OLIVERO A, TAPPERO S, MALTZMAN O, et al. Urinary continence recovery after Retzius-sparing robot assisted radical prostatectomy and adjuvant radiation therapy. Cancers (Basel), 2023, 15(17): 4390. doi: 10. 3390/cancers15174390.
LI X, HE M J, BAO Y G, et al. Improvement of continence with preservation of pelvic stabilized structure in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Chin J Urol, 2018, 39(10): 733-739. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1000-6702.2018.10.003.
LIAO X Y, BAO Y G, LIU Z H, et al. Functional outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with preservation of pelvic stabilized structure and early elevated retrograde liberation of neurovascular bundle. Chin J Surg, 2024, 62(2): 128-134. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112139-20230718-00014.
GACCI M, SAKALIS V I, KARAVITAKIS M, et al. European Association of Urology guidelines on male urinary incontinence. Eur Urol, 2022, 82(4): 387-398. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.05.012.
DONG J, JI R, CUI L, et al. Feasibility, safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with a new robotic surgical system: a prospective, controlled, randomized clinical trial. BMC Cancer, 2024, 24(1): 1194. doi: 10.1186/s12885-024-12855-w.
TAI J W, SORKHI S R, TRIVEDI I, et al. Evaluation of age- and radical-prostatectomy related changes in male pelvic floor anatomy based on magnetic resonance imaging and 3-dimensional reconstruction. World J Mens Health, 2021, 39(3): 566-575. doi: 10.5534/wjmh.200021.
Van Dijk-de HAAN M C, BOELLAARD T N, et al. Value of different magnetic resonance imaging-based measurements of anatomical structures on preoperative prostate imaging in predicting urinary continence after radical prostatectomy in men with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus, 2022, 8(5): 1211-1225. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2022.01.015.
BARAKAT B, OTHMAN H, GAUGER U, et al. Retzius sparing radical prostatectomy versus robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: which technique is more beneficial for prostate cancer patients (master study)? a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus, 2022, 8(4): 1060-1071. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2021.08.003.
WAGASKAR V G, MITTAL A, SOBOTKA S, et al. Hood technique for robotic radical prostatectomy—preserving periurethral anatomical structures in the space of Retzius and sparing the pouch of Douglas, enabling early return of continence without compromising surgical margin rates. Eur Urol, 2021, 80(2): 213-221. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.044.
MUNGOVAN S F, SANDHU J S, AKIN O, et al. Preoperative membranous urethral length measurement and continence recovery following radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol, 2017, 71(3): 368-378. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.023.
DALL C P, MASON J B, CHOUDHURY E, et al. Long-term outcomes of pelvic-fascia sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus standard technique: Superior urinary function and quality of life without compromising oncologic efficacy in a single-surgeon series. Urol Oncol, 2024, 42(3): 67.e17-67.e24. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2023.11.020.
UMARI P, EDEN C, CAHILL D, et al. Retzius-sparing versus standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a comparative prospective study of nearly 500 patients. J Urol, 2021, 205(3): 780-790. doi: 10.1097/JU. 0000000000001435.
FICARRA V, ROSSANESE M, GILANTE M, et al. Retzius-sparing vs. standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for clinically localised prostate cancer: a comparative study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis, 2023, 26(3): 568-574. doi: 10.1038/s41391-022-00625-3.
GACCI M, De NUNZIO C, SAKALIS V, et al. Latest evidence on post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence. J Clin Med, 2023, 12(3): 1190. doi: 10.3390/jcm12031190.
CASTELLAN P, FERRETTI S, LITTERIO G, et al. Management of urinary incontinence following radical prostatectomy: challenges and solutions. Ther Clin Risk Manag, 2023, 19: 43-56. doi: 10.2147/TCRM. S283305.
KANNADY C, CLAVELL-HERNÁNDEZ J. Orgasm-associated urinary incontinence (climacturia) following radical prostatectomy: a review of pathophysiology and current treatment options. Asian J Androl, 2020, 22(6): 549-554. doi: 10.4103/aja.aja_145_19.
ZHOU L, CHEN Y, YUAN X, et al. Preoperative pelvic floor muscle exercise for continence after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Public Health, 2023, 11: 1186067. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1186067.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
