Abstract:Objectives:To examine the functional outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with preservation of pelvic floor stabilized structure and early elevated retrograde liberation of the neurovascular bundle (PEEL).Methods:This study was a retrospective cohort study. Between June 1, 2022, and March 20, 2023, 27 cases of RARP with PEEL and 153 cases of RARP with preservation of pelvic floor stabilized structure (PPSS) were included in this study. All patients were males, aged (62.5±5.2) years (range: 50 to 73 years). There were 18 cases of ≤T2b stage and 9 cases of T2c stage.After 1∶1 propensity score matching, the postoperative functional outcomes of 27 cases of RARP with PEEL and 27 cases of RARP with PPSS were compared. All surgeries were performed by a single surgeon and included patients were clinically staged as cT1-2N0M0 without preoperative urinary incontinence or erectile dysfunction. In RARP with PEEL, the prostate was cut near the midline at the front when dissecting the neurovascular bundle, dissection was performed between the visceral layer of the pelvic fascia and the prostatic fascia, preserving the parietal layer and the visceral layer of the pelvic fascia, and the neurovascular bundle was retrogradely released from the apex. The cumulative probability curve was plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method and the Log-rank test was used to compare the differences in functional outcomes between the two groups. Univariate and multivariate analysis with the Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare postoperative urinary continence and sexual function.Results:The recovery time of continence and potency was significantly longer in the PPSS group than in the PEEL group (all P<0.05). The continence rate of the PEEL group was significantly higher than that of the PPSS group (92.59% vs. 68.10%, P=0.026) at 3 months after surgery. The potency rate of the PEEL group was also significantly higher than that of the PPSS group (40.70% vs. 15.10%, P=0.037) at 3 months after surgery. In the univariate analysis, compared to the PPSS technique, the PEEL technique was associated with a shorter recovery time of continence ( HR=1.94, 95% CI: 1.08 to 3.48, P=0.027) and a shorter recovery time of potency ( HR=2.06, 95% CI: 1.03 to 4.13, P=0.042). In the multivariate analysis, the PEEL technique was an independent prognosis factor for postoperative recovery of continence ( HR=2.05, 95% CI: 1.01 to 4.17, P=0.047) and potency ( HR=3.57, 95% CI: 1.43 to 8.92, P=0.007). All the cases of the PPSS group and the PEEL group were performed successfully with negative surgical margins. Conclusion:Compared with PPSS, PEEL may be more conducive to the recovery of urinary continence and sexual function after RARP.

Comparison of oncological, surgical, and functional outcomes between radical retropubic and radical perineal prostatectomy: A multi-institutional study

Comparison of oncological and functional results of robotic and open perineal radical prostatectomy

Comparison of oncologic and functional outcomes by retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized and locally advanced prostate cancer

Retropubic, Laparoscopic, and Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Surgical, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes: A Systematic Review

Robot-assisted and Laparoscopic Vs Open Radical Prostatectomy in Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: Perioperative, Functional, and Oncological Outcomes

Comparative study on the efficacy and safety of robot assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy

Robot-Assisted And Laparoscopic Vs Open Radical Prostatectomy In Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: Perioperative, Functional, And Oncological Outcomes A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis

The Efficiency and Safety of Transperitoneal Versus Extraperitoneal Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for Patients with Prostate Cancer: A Single Center Experience with 1-year Follow-up

Comparison of robotic-assistant laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and retropubic radical prostatectomy

Retzius‐sparing versus standard robot‐assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: A two‐year patient‐reported and oncological assessment

Robotic vs. Retropubic radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer: A systematic review and a meta-analysis update

Peri‐operative outcomes following radical prostatectomy in the setting of advanced prostate cancer

Intermediate-Term Oncological Outcome Assessment for Robotic Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Comparing Retzius Sparing to Standard Approach in a Randomized Control Cohort

Transvesical Retzius-Sparing Versus Standard Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Adjusted Analysis

Comparative evaluation of continence and potency after radical prostatectomy: Robotic vs. laparoscopic approaches, validating LAP-01 trial

Functional Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy with Preservation of Pelvic Stabilized Structure and Early Elevated Retrograde Liberation of Neurovascular Bundle

Comparison of Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy and Standard Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: a Meta-Analysis

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Is More Beneficial for Prostate Cancer Patients: A System Review and Meta-Analysis.

Single-Port Extraperitoneal vs. Multiport Transperitoneal Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Comparison of Outcomes in Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy and Open Radical Prostatectomy

A comprehensive examination and meta-analysis evaluating perioperative, oncological, and functional results of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in comparison to three-dimensional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (3D LRP)