REFERENCES

1. AUANews. Westerman ME. Robotic prostatectomy: a game-changer in prostate cancer treatment. 2024. Available from: https://auanews.net/issues/articles/2024/february-2024/robotics-robotic-prostatectomy-a-game-changer-in-prostate-cancer-treatment. [Last accessed on 11 Jul 2025].

2. Lane A, Metcalfe C, Young GJ, et al; ProtecT Study group. Patient-reported outcomes in the ProtecT randomized trial of clinically localized prostate cancer treatments: study design, and baseline urinary, bowel and sexual function and quality of life. BJU Int. 2016;118:869-79.

3. Hoffman KE, Penson DF, Zhao Z, et al. Patient-reported outcomes through 5 years for active surveillance, surgery, brachytherapy, or external beam radiation with or without androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2020;323:149-63.

4. Shi Z. Laparoscopic vs. open surgery: a comparative analysis of wound infection rates and recovery outcomes. Int Wound J. 2024;21:e14474.

5. De Carlo F, Celestino F, Verri C, Masedu F, Liberati E, Di Stasi SM. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes: a systematic review. Urol Int. 2014;93:373-83.

6. Borregales LD, Berg WT, Tal O, et al. 'Trifecta' after radical prostatectomy: is there a standard definition? BJU Int. 2013;112:60-7.

7. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62:405-17.

8. Galfano A, Di Trapani D, Sozzi F, et al. Beyond the learning curve of the Retzius-sparing approach for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncologic and functional results of the first 200 patients with ≥ 1 year of follow-up. Eur Urol. 2013;64:974-80.

9. Davis M, Egan J, Marhamati S, Galfano A, Kowalczyk KJ. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted robotic prostatectomy: past, present, and future. Urol Clin North Am. 2021;48:11-23.

10. Kowalczyk KJ, Davis M, O’Neill J, et al. Impact of Retzius-sparing versus standard robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy on penile shortening, Peyronie’s disease, and inguinal hernia sequelae. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2020;22:17-22.

11. Egan J, Marhamati S, Carvalho FLF, et al. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy leads to durable improvement in urinary function and quality of life versus standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy without compromise on oncologic efficacy: single-surgeon series and step-by-step guide. Eur Urol. 2021;79:839-57.

12. Mulhall JP, Secin FP, Guillonneau B. Artery sparing radical prostatectomy - myth or reality? J Urol. 2008;179:827-31.

13. Droupy S, Benoît G, Giuliano F, Jardin A. Penile arteries in humans. Origin - distribution - variations. Surg Radiol Anat. 1997;19:161-7.

14. Alsaid B, Bessede T, Diallo D, et al. Division of autonomic nerves within the neurovascular bundles distally into corpora cavernosa and corpus spongiosum components: immunohistochemical confirmation with three-dimensional reconstruction. Eur Urol. 2011;59:902-9.

15. de Carvalho PA, Barbosa JABA, Guglielmetti GB, et al. Retrograde release of the neurovascular bundle with preservation of dorsal venous complex during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: optimizing functional outcomes. Eur Urol. 2020;77:628-35.

16. Barakat B, Othman H, Gauger U, Wolff I, Hadaschik B, Rehme C. Retzius sparing radical prostatectomy versus robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: which technique is more beneficial for prostate cancer patients (MASTER study)? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus. 2022;8:1060-71.

17. Checcucci E, Veccia A, Fiori C, et al. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy vs the standard approach: a systematic review and analysis of comparative outcomes. BJU Int. 2020;125:8-16.

18. Porcaro AB, Tafuri A, Sebben M, et al. Linear extent of positive surgical margin impacts biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a high-volume center. J Robot Surg. 2020;14:663-75.

19. Lee S, Kim KB, Jo JK, et al. Prognostic value of focal positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2016;14:e313-9.

20. Grypari IM, Zolota V, Tzelepi V. Radical or not-so-radical prostatectomy: do surgical margins matter? Cancers. 2021;14:13.

21. Dall CP, Mason JB, Choudhury E, et al. Long-term outcomes of pelvic-fascia sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus standard technique: superior urinary function and quality of life without compromising oncologic efficacy in a single-surgeon series. Urol Oncol. 2024;42:67.e17-24.

22. Dalela D, Jeong W, Prasad MA, et al. A pragmatic randomized controlled trial examining the impact of the Retzius-sparing approach on early urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2017;72:677-85.

23. Kadhim H, Ang KM, Tan WS, et al. Retzius-sparing technique independently predicts early recovery of urinary continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Robot Surg. 2022;16:1419-26.

24. Dell’oglio P, Tappero S, Longoni M, et al. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer patients: results from a large single institution series. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;38:69-78.

25. O’Connor-Cordova MA, Macías AGO, Sancen-Herrera JP, et al. Surgical and functional outcomes of Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus conventional robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer. Are outcomes worth it? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate. 2023;83:1395-414.

26. Olivero A, Galfano A, Piccinelli M, et al. Retzius-sparing robotic radical prostatectomy for surgeons in the learning curve: a propensity score-matching analysis. Eur Urol Focus. 2021;7:772-8.

27. Yee CH, Liu AQ, Chiu PKF, Teoh JYC, Hou SSM, Ng CF. A propensity score-matching study on Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: evidence of continence advantage on the early learning curve. Asian J Surg. 2022;45:1403-7.

28. Wong D, Rincon J, Henning G, Smith Z, Kim E. Retzius sparing prostatectomy effect on symptomatic lymphocele rates. Urology. 2021;149:129-32.

29. Tahra A, Sen U, Sobay R, İnkaya A, Kucuk E, Boylu U. Comparison of Retzius-sparing versus standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Actas Urol Esp. 2022;46:293-300.

30. Deng W, Jiang H, Liu X, et al. Transvesical Retzius-sparing versus standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a retrospective propensity score-adjusted analysis. Front Oncol. 2021;11:687010.

31. Stonier T, Simson N, Davis J, Challacombe B. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) vs standard RARP: it’s time for critical appraisal. BJU Int. 2019;123:5-7.

32. Chipman JJ, Sanda MG, Dunn RL, et al; PROST-QA Consortium. Measuring and predicting prostate cancer related quality of life changes using EPIC for clinical practice. J Urol. 2014;191:638-45.

33. Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62:418-30.

34. Menon M, Dalela D, Jamil M, et al. Functional recovery, oncologic outcomes and postoperative complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an evidence-based analysis comparing the Retzius sparing and standard approaches. J Urol. 2018;199:1210-7.

35. Umari P, Eden C, Cahill D, Rizzo M, Eden D, Sooriakumaran P. Retzius-sparing versus standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a comparative prospective study of nearly 500 patients. J Urol. 2021;205:780-90.

36. Gontero P, Galzerano M, Bartoletti R, et al. New insights into the pathogenesis of penile shortening after radical prostatectomy and the role of postoperative sexual function. J Urol. 2007;178:602-7.

37. Carlsson S, Nilsson AE, Johansson E, Nyberg T, Akre O, Steineck G. Self-perceived penile shortening after radical prostatectomy. Int J Impot Res. 2012;24:179-84.

38. Tal R, Heck M, Teloken P, Siegrist T, Nelson CJ, Mulhall JP. Peyronie’s disease following radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictors. J Sex Med. 2010;7:1254-61.

39. Würnschimmel C, Graefen M. Orphaned side-effects after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: is the Retzius-sparing approach superior to the standard approach or are the data just not mature enough? Eur Urol Open Sci. 2021;23:34-5.

40. Alder R, Zetner D, Rosenberg J. Incidence of inguinal hernia after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2020;203:265-74.

41. Wagaskar VG, Mittal A, Sobotka S, et al. Hood technique for robotic radical prostatectomy-preserving periurethral anatomical structures in the space of Retzius and sparing the pouch of douglas, enabling early return of continence without compromising surgical margin rates. Eur Urol. 2021;80:213-21.

42. Mount Sinai. Hood technique enables early return to continence following RARP. 2020. Available from: https://reports.mountsinai.org/article/hood-technique-enables-early-return-to-continence-following-rarp. [Last accessed on 11 Jul 2025].

43. ClinicalTrials.gov. Clinical trial of approaches to prostate cancer surgery (PARTIAL). 2025. Available from: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05155501. [Last accessed on 11 Jul 2025].