Background: Single port radical prostatectomy with a transvesical Retzius-sparing approach (SPRP) has shown technical feasibility and early evidence of improved time to urinary continence. How this novel approach leads to differences in pathologic outcomes and biochemical recurrence rates (BCR) as compared to multiport radical prostatectomy (MPRP) has yet to be investigated. Our goal was thus to study the pathologic and short term survival outcomes of patients undergoing SPRP as compared to those undergoing MPRP. Methods: Single center, single surgeon retrospective review of prospectively collected data on 169 patients with low and intermediate risk prostate cancer, whom either underwent SPRP or MRPR (2017-2022). Preoperative clinicopathologic and radiographic characteristics were compared. Following RP, pathologic outcomes, including T stage, grade group (GG), margin status, extraprostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesical invasion (SVI), node retrieval rates, lymph node invasion (LNI) and other adverse histopathologic features were compared between both groups. Cox proportional hazards univariate analysis was used to evaluate the impact of SPRP on biochemical recurrence free survival as compared to MPRP with a three year follow up. Results: A total of 84 patients underwent MPRP and 85 patients underwent SPRP. The SPRP cohort had a higher proportion of clinical T stage one as compared to the MPRP cohort (99% vs 85%, p=0.04), however both groups did not differ preoperatively in terms of median total PSA (6.9 MPRP vs 6.2 SPRP, p=0.24), PI-RADS score (p=0.60) or biopsy GG (p=0.52). Following RP, both groups had similar pathologic outcomes including final grade group, T stage, EPE rates, SVI and Cribriform/intraductal rates (p>0.05). SPRP did yield a lower median number of nodes as compared to MPRP (2 (0-5) vs 6(4-9), p<0.001), but this did not translate to differences in LNI (p=0.08). At a median of approximately 12 months of follow up, there were no differences in the biochemical recurrence-free survival rates among both groups (p=0.38). Cox proportional hazards univariate analysis did not consider SPRP to be an independent predictor of biochemical recurrence (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.13-2.23, p=0.39). Conclusions: In well selected men, SPRP yields similar short term oncologic control as MPRP with equal rates of margin status, EPE/SVI invasion rates and rates of biochemical recurrence at 1 year. In this small, early, single surgeon experience, SPRP appears to be oncologically safe for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer patients, however longer follow up is necessary, larger numbers and multi- institutional comparisons are needed.