Retzius-Sparing Approach for Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy

  • Antonio Galfano
  • Silvia Secco
  • Dario Di Trapani
  • Giovanni Petralia
  • Elena Strada
  • Aldo Massimo Bocciardi


Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) is currently the standard surgical treatment for localized prostate cancer. Since 2010, Dr. Aldo Bocciardi has developed a new anatomical approach through the rectovesical pouch at Niguarda Hospital in Milan.

The technique has been fully standardized and described for all stages of prostate cancer with surgical indication; obviously, the larger is the anatomical damage, the worse will be the functional results.

Sparing all the Retzius space structures, this approach allows an earlier and improved continence recovery, without compromising the oncological outcomes.


Prostate cancer Radical prostatectomy Robot-assisted laparoscopy Robotic surgery Da Vinci Retzius-sparing RARP Bocciardi approach 


  1. 1.
    Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Rozet F, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: technical and early oncological assessment of 40 operations. Eur Urol. 1999;36(1):14–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Menon M, Shrivastava A, Bhandari M, Satyanarayana R, Siva S, Agarwal PK. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technical modifications in 2009. Eur Urol. 2009;56(1):89–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Galfano A, Ascione A, Grimaldi S, Petralia G, Strada E, Bocciardi AM. A new anatomic approach for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a feasibility study for completely intrafascial surgery. Eur Urol. 2010;58(3):457–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol. 1982;128(3):492–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kwon SY, Lee JN, Kim HT, Kim TH, Kim BW, Choi GS, et al. Endopelvic fascia preservation during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does it affect urinary incontinence? Scand J Urol. 2014;48(6):506–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cornu JN, Phé V, Fournier G, Delmas V, Sèbe P. Fascia surrounding the prostate: clinical and anatomical basis of the nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Surg Radiol Anat. 2010;32(7):663–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Walz J, Burnett AL, Costello AJ, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Guillonneau B, et al. A critical analysis of the current knowledge of surgical anatomy related to optimization of cancer control and preservation of continence and erection in candidates for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2010;57(2):179–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tewari AK, Bigelow K, Rao S, Takenaka A, El-Tabi N, Te A, et al. Anatomic restoration technique of continence mechanism and preservation of puboprostatic collar: a novel modification to achieve early urinary continence in men undergoing robotic prostatectomy. Urology. 2007;69(4):726–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alsaid B, Bessede T, Diallo D, Moszkowicz D, Karam I, Benoit G, 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(6):902–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Allan R, García NA, Montenegro JM, Álvarez-Alberó JN. Prevalence of accessory pudendal artery. Clin Anat. 2012;25(8):983–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thai CT, Karam IM, Nguyen-Thi PL, Lefèvre F, Hubert J, Felblinger J, et al. Pelvic magnetic resonance imaging angioanatomy of the arterial blood supply to the penis in suspected prostate cancer patients. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(5):823–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Box GN, Kaplan AG, Rodriguez E Jr, Skarecky DW, Osann KE, Finley DS, et al. Sacrifice of accessory pudendal arteries in normally potent men during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy does not impact potency. J Sex Med. 2010;7(1 Pt 1):298–303.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Polascik TJ, Walsh PC. Radical retropubic prostatectomy: the influence of accessory pudendal arteries on the recovery of sexual function. J Urol. 1995;154(1):150–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Galfano A, Petralia G, Secco S, Di Trapani D, Strada E, Bocciardi AM. Cistostomia sovrapubica versus catetere vescicale in pazienti sottoposti a prostatectomia radicale robot-assistita: studio prospettico di confronto. Società Italiana di Urologia, Annual Meeting–Abstract Poster number 112.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol. 2014;65(1):124–37. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thompson I, Thrasher GB, Aus G, Burnett A, Canby-Hagino ED, Cookson MS, et al. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 Update.
  17. 17.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of Clavien-Dindo patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Montorsi F, Wilson TG, Rosen RC, Ahlering TE, Artibani W, Carroll PR, et al. Best practices in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: recommendations of the pasadena consensus panel. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):368–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Asimakopoulos AD, Milano R, Galfano A, Bocciardi AM, Vespasiani G, Spera E, et al. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Critical appraisal of the anatomic landmarks for a complete intrafascical approach. Clin Anat. 2015;28(7):896–902.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009;374(9695):1105–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mottrie A, Ficarra V. Can robot-assisted radical prostatectomy still be considered a new technology pushed by marketers? The IDEAL evaluation. Eur Urol. 2010;58(4):525–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Galfano A, Di Trapani D, Sozzi F, Strada E, Petralia G, Bramerio M, 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(6):974–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Abdollah F, Dalela D, Sood A, Sammon J, Ashni-Prasad M, Jeong W, et al. Urinary continence outcomes after Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective, non-randomized, IDEAL stage 2b (exploration) study. American Urological Association, annual meeting 2016–Abstract Poster number D43–12.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lim SK, Kim KH, Shin TY, Han WK, Chung BH, Hong SJ, et al. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: combining the best of retropubic and perineal approaches. BJU Int. 2014;114(2):236–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Galfano
    • 1
  • Silvia Secco
    • 1
  • Dario Di Trapani
    • 1
  • Giovanni Petralia
    • 1
  • Elena Strada
    • 1
  • Aldo Massimo Bocciardi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyNiguarda HospitalMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations