Page 20 - Read Online

Page 6 of 10 Olivero et al. Mini-invasive Surg 2022;6:6 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1225.2021.117

Table 2. Cancer control and functional outcomes of 1240 prostate cancer patients treated with the Retzius-sparing approach at a
single European high-volume center
Functional and cancer control outcomes (n = 1240)
Positive surgical margins, n (%) 215 (17.3)
BCR, n (%) 149 (11.9)
Urinary continence at 24 months, n (%)
No pad 981 (79.5)
Safety pad 171 (13.8)
More than 1 pad/day 88 (6.7)
Sexual potency at 24 months, n (%)
Spontaneous erections 379 (30.6)
PDE-5 inhibitors 264 (21.3)
Intracavernous injections 34 (2.7)
ED 563 (45.4)
Overall trifecta outcome, n (%) 522 (42.1)
Trifecta outcome for age groups, years, %
Younger than 56 62.2
56-60 58.2
61-65 45.8
66-70 34.2
71-75 26.1
Older than 75 9.1
Trifecta outcome for NS technique, %
Full NS 49.9
Partial NS 38.8
Non-NS 20.7

BCR: Biochemical recurrence; ED: erectile disfunction; NS: nerve sparing.

Table 3. Multivariable logistic regression model predicting trifecta in 1240 prostate cancer patients treated with the Retzius-sparing
approach at a single European high-volume center
Trifecta outcome
Variables
OR (95%CI) P-value
Age 0.89 (0.84-0.90) < 0.001
Body max index 0.92 (0.84-1.00) 0.077
Charlson comorbidity score
≤ 2 Ref.
≥ 3 0.93 (0.51-1.09) 0.15
Prostate volume 1.01 (0.99-1.02) 0.14
Previous BPH surgery
Yes Ref.
No 2.64 (0.75-9.8) 0.13
PSA 1.01 (0.99-1.01) 0.9
Clinical tumour stage
≤ cT2 Ref.
≥ cT3 0.57 (0.1-2.2) 0.4
ISUP grade group at biopsy
1-3 Ref.
4-5 1.02 (0.39-2.66) 0.9
Nerve sparing technique
Non NS Ref.
Partial NS 3.34 (1.01-11) 0.04
Full NS 4.57 (1.8-12) < 0.001

OR: Odds ratio; CI: confidence interval.