Can salvage Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy improve continence outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis study

• Published in: World journal of urology Vol. 41; no. 9; pp. 2311 - 2317
• Main Authors: Nunes-Silva, Igor, Hidaka, Alexandre Kyoshi, Glina, Felipe Placco Araujo, Hayashi, Renan Murata, Glina, Sidney
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.09.2023; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Cancer surgery; Clinical trials; Cohort analysis; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Meta-analysis; Nephrology; Oncology; Original Article; Patients; Prostate cancer; Prostatectomy; Quality control; Robotic surgery; Systematic review; Urological surgery; Urology; Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy; Continence outcomes; Retzius sparing; Prostate cancer
• ISSN: 1433-8726; 0724-4983; 1433-8726
• DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04505-w

Purpose Salvage Radical Prostatectomy is challenging and associated with high rates of incontinence. The novel Retzius-sparing RARP (RS-RARP) approach has shown impressive high immediate and 1-year continence rates (> 90%) when applied as primary treatment. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of salvage Retzius-sparing RARP (sRS-RARP) on continence outcomes in the salvage scenario. Materials and methods Using PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis of articles was conducted on Medline through PubMed and on Cochrane through Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to select 17 retrospective cohort studies published until April 2023 about sRS-RARP and continence. Data were extracted independently by at least two authors. The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) was registered. Retrospective studies were subjected to a domain-based risk of bias assessment in accordance with the Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment scale cohort studies (NOS). Prostate cancer patients were chosen from prospective nonrandomized or randomized sRS-RARP or sS-RARP studies that examined continence outcomes. Results Seventeen studies were included: 14 were retrospectives only and 3 described retrospective comparison cohorts (sRS-RARP vs sS-RARP). All the retrospective studies were of “fair” quality using the NOS. sRS-RARP may increase recovery of urinary continence after surgery compared to sS-RARP [OR 4.36, 95% CI 1.7–11.17; I 2  = 46.8%; studies = 4; participants = 87]. Conclusions sRS-RARP approach has potential to improve continence outcomes in the salvage setting. Patient summary sRS-RARP approach has potential to positively impact continence function on patients who underwent salvage surgery.