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

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive techniques have demonstrated several advantages over the open approach. In the field of prostate cancer, the LAP-01 trial demonstrated the superiority of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) over laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) when comparing continence at 3-month after surgery, with no statistically significant differences at 6 and 12 months of follow-up.

OBJECTIVES

Externally validate the LAP-01 study and compare functional outcomes between the two minimally invasive approaches.

MATERIAL AND

METHODS

This retrospective study, conducted by a single surgeon (MRB), utilized data from a prospectively collected database, which included patients who underwent both RARP or LRP. Data regarding baseline characteristics, continence (assessed through the 24-h Pad test and ICIQ questionnaire) and potency were collected at multiple time points: 1 and 6 weeks after catheter removal, 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-surgery.

RESULTS

The study encompasses 601 patients, 455 who underwent LRP and 146 RARP. The median age at diagnosis was 64 for LRP and 62 for RARP, while the median PSA levels at diagnosis were 6.7 ng/mL for LRP and 6.5 ng/mL for RARP. Bilateral nerve-sparing procedures were performed in 34.07 % of LRP cases and 51.37 % of RARP cases. RARP exhibited a significant advantage over LRP both in continence and potency. Continence rates at 3-, 6- and 9-month after radical prostatectomy (RP) were 36.43 %, 61.86 % and 79.87 % for LRP, compared to 50.98 %, 69.87 % and 91.69 % for RARP. Potency rates at the same intervals were 0.90 %, 3.16 % and 6.39 % for LRP, and 6.19 %, 9.16 % and 18.96 % for RARP. These rates were more pronounced in patients with bilateral nerve-sparing.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that RARP results in significantly better continence recovery and superior potency outcomes throughout the entire follow-up period compared to LRP, even at the beginning of the robotic approach learning curve.