Research Article

Independent Factors Affecting Postoperative Short-Term Urinary Continence Recovery after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Table 2

Perioperative and pathologic outcomes divided by surgical approaches.

VariablesAnterior approach (n = 135)Transvesical approach (n = 73)Posterior approach (n = 66)

Operative time, min, mean (SD)117.7 (25.0)133.3 (27.7)128.4 (29.0)0.001
Estimated blood loss, mL, mean (SD)98.6 (48.5)111.9 (62.8)105.5 (75.7)0.247
ePLND, n (%)37 (27.4%)8 (11.0%)6 (9.1%)0.001
Open conversion, n (%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
Transfusion, n (%)5 (3.7%)1 (1.4%)3 (4.5%)0.561
Nerve-sparing technique, n (%)92 (68.1%)69 (94.5%)61 (92.4%)0.001
Postoperative pathology
Pathological T stage, n (%)0.001
 pT291 (67.4%)63 (86.3%)59 (89.4%)
 pT344 (32.6%)10 (13.7%)7 (10.6%)
Specimen Gleason score, median (IQR)7 (5.8)6 (5.7)7 (5.7)0.038
Positive surgical margin, n (%)25 (18.5%)11 (15.1%)9 (13.6%)0.637
Positive lymph node, n (%)12 (8.9%)3 (4.1%)3 (4.5%)0.389

ePLND: extended pelvic lymph nodes dissection; SD: standard deviation; IQR: interquartile range. Continuous variables were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis test, and categorical variables were compared using the Chi-square test.