Skip to main content

Table 2 Pathological and oncological outcomes in men received RRP or RARP

From: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy significantly reduced biochemical recurrence compared to retro pubic radical prostatectomy

  

RRP (n = 490)

RARP (n = 418)

P value

Gleason score (%)

6

148 (30)

23 (5)

<0.0001

7

295 (60)

288 (69)

8–10

47 (9.7)

107 (26)

Pathological T stage (%)

0

11 (2.2)

1 (0.2)

0.007

2a

49 (10)

43 (10)

1

2b

82 (17)

50 (12)

0.04

2c

219 (44)

195 (46)

0.69

3a

118 (24)

107 (25)

0.64

3b

6 (1)

22 (5.3)

<0.0001

4

5 (1)

0 (0)

N.A.

Lymphovascular invasion (%)

0

390 (80)

236 (56)

<0.0001

1

100 (20)

182 (44)

Perineural invasion

0

203 (41)

119 (29)

<0.0001

1

287 (59)

298 (71)

N stage (%)

0

486 (99)

83 (93)

0.014

1

4 (0.8)

6 (7)

Positive surgical margin (PSM) (%)

Total

213 (44)

89 (21)

<0.0001

pT2a

6 /49 (12)

5/43 (11)

0.92

pT2b

15/82 (18)

6/50 (12)

0.33

pT2c

95/219 (43)

19/195 (9.8)

<0.0001

pT3a

92/118 (78)

46/107 (43)

<0.0001

pT3b

3/6 (50)

13/22 (55)

0.7

pT4

2/5 (40)

0/0

N.A.

Sites of PSM (%)

Base

33 (6.7)

32 (7.7)

0.59

Lateral lobe

62 (13)

24 (5.7)

0.0003

Apex

136 (28)

33 (7.8)

<0.0001

Anterior

5 (1)

5 (1)

0.8

Posterior

3 (0.6)

1 (0.2)

0.4

Fat tissues

2 (0.4)

6 (1.4)

0.9

Seminal vesicle

1 (0.2)

4 (1)

0.1

PSA-relapse (%)

 

121 (25)

36 (8.6)

<0.0001

Salvage therapy

RT

38

21

N.A

ADT

61

7

RT + ADT

9

6

Surveillance

13

1

  1. RRP Retro-pubic radical prostatectomy; RARP Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; N.A. Not applicable; RT radio therapy; ADT androgen deprivation therapy