Detrusorrhaphy and Intrafascial Nerve-Sparing During Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy on Recovery of Continence and Potency: Surgical Feasibility, One-Year Functional and Oncologic Outcomes
Vol. 18 No. 03 (2021),
21 July 2021
Purpose: To report the 1-year functional outcomes, oncologic outcomes, and postoperative complications in patients who underwent modified robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) procedures for achieving early recovery of continence and potency postoperatively.
Materials and Methods: This study included 165 patients who underwent RARP. Overall, 98 patients underwent RARP using our modified detrusorrhaphy and intrafascial nerve-sparing techniques (group 1) and 67 underwent standard RARP (group 2). Continence and potency rates were assessed at 1 week, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after RARP. Oncologic outcomes comprised positive surgical margins (PSMs) and biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate.
Results: The continence rates were 61.2% and 6.0%, 72.5% and 11.9%, 79.6% and 20.9%, 91.8% and 58.2%, and 97.9% and 74.6% at 1 week, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months in group 1 and 2, respectively. The potency rates were 66.3% and 11.9%, 78.6% and 38.8%, 85.7% and 50.8%, 92.9% and 70.2%, and 95.9% and 79.1% at 1 week, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months in group 1 and 2, respectively. Overall postoperative complication rates (< 10%) were similar between the groups. The PSMs rate was 17.4% and 16.4% in the two groups. The rate of PSMs in the cohort of patients with stage pT2 disease decreased to 13.6% and 12.5% in groups 1 and 2, respectively. BCR rate was 5.1% and 6.0% in groups 1 and 2, respectively.
Conclusion: The use of detrusorrhaphy and intrafascial nerve-sparing techniques is safe and feasible, with our results demonstrating early return to continence and potency. Further studies should be conducted.
- prostate cancer
- robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
- erectile function
How to Cite
Willis DL, Gonzalgo ML, Brotzman M, Feng Z, Trock B, Su LM. Comparison of outcomes between pure laparoscopic vs robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a study of comparative effectiveness based upon validated quality of life outcomes. BJU Int. 2012;109:898–905.
Menon M, Shrivastava A, Bhandari M, Satyanarayana R, Siva S, Agarwal PK. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technical modifications in 2009. Eur Urol. 2009;56:89–96.
Patel VR, Schatloff O, Chauhan S, et al. The role of the prostatic vasculature as a landmark for nerve sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;61:571–6.
Basiri A, de la Rosette JJ, Tabatabaei S, Woo HH, Laguna MP, Shemshaki H. Comparison of retropubic, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: who is the winner? World J Urol. 2018;36:609–21.
Vora AA, Dajani D, Lynch JH, Kowalczyk KJ. Anatomic and technical considerations for optimizing recovery of urinary function during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Curr Opin Urol. 2013;23:78–87.
Ogawa S, Hoshi S, Koguchi T, et al. Three-layer two-step posterior reconstruction using peritoneum during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy to improve recovery of urinary continence: a prospective comparative study. J Endourol. 2017;31:1251–7.
Pavlovich CP, Rocco B, Druskin SC, Davis JW. Urinary continence recovery after radical prostatectomy - anatomical/reconstructive and nerve-sparing techniques to improve outcomes. BJU Int. 2017;120:185–96.
Kumar A, Tandon S, Samavedi S, Mouraviev V, Bates AS, Patel VR. Current status of various neurovascular bundle-sparing techniques in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Robot Surg. 2016;10:187–200.
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.
Penson DF, Feng Z, Kuniyuki A, et al. General quality of life 2 years following treatment for prostate cancer: what influences outcomes? results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:1147–54.
Porpiglia F, Bertolo R, Manfredi M, et al. Total anatomical reconstruction during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: implications on early recovery of urinary continence. Eur Urol. 2016;69:485–95.
Walsh PC, Marschke PL. Intussusception of the reconstructed bladder neck leads to earlier continence after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2002;59:934–8.
Tan G, Srivastava A, Grover S, et al. Optimizing vesicourethral anastomosis healing after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: lessons learned from three techniques in 1900 patients. J Endourol. 2010;24:1975–83.
Parsons JK, Marschke P, Maples P, Walsh PC. Effect of methylprednisolone on return of sexual function after nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 2004;64:987–90.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.
Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL, et al. Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol. 2007;177:540–5.
Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol. 2014;65:124–37.
Saika T, Miura N, Fukumoto T, Yanagihara Y, Miyauchi Y, Kikugawa T. Role of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in locally advanced prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 2018;25:30–5.
Froehner M, Novotny V, Koch R, Leike S, Twelker L, Wirth MP. Perioperative complications after radical prostatectomy: open versus robot-assisted laparoscopic approach. Urol Int. 2013;90:312–5.
Tewari AK, Ali A, Ghareeb G, et al. Improving time to continence after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: augmentation of the total anatomic reconstruction technique by adding dynamic detrusor cuff trigonoplasty and suprapubic tube placement. J Endourol. 2012;26:1546–52.
Moinzadeh A, Shunaigat AN, Libertino JA. Urinary incontinence after radical retropubic prostatectomy: the outcome of a surgical technique. BJU Int. 2003;92:355–9.
Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol. 1982;128:492–7.
Tewari AK, Ali A, Metgud S, et al. Functional outcomes following robotic prostatectomy using athermal, traction free risk-stratified grades of nerve sparing. World J Urol. 2013;31:471–80.
Tewari AK, Srivastava A, Huang MW, et al. Anatomical grades of nerve sparing: a risk-stratified approach to neural-hammock sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). BJU Int. 2011;108:984–92.
Eichelberg C, Erbersdobler A, Michl U, et al. Nerve distribution along the prostatic capsule. Eur Urol. 2007;51:105–10.
Kursh ED, Bodner DR. Alternative method of nerve-sparing when performing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 1988;32:205–9.
Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris technique. J Urol. 2000;163:1643–9.
Patel VR, Sivaraman A, Coelho RF, et al. Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2011;59:702–7.
Srougi V, Bessa J Jr, Baghdadi M, et al. Surgical method influences specimen margins and biochemical recurrence during radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol. 2017;35:1481–8.
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. 2018;S0302:30481–0.
- Abstract Viewed: 0 times
- 5915/pdf Downloaded: 0 times