Detrusorrhaphy and Intrafascial Nerve-Sparing During Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy on Recovery of Continence and Potency: Surgical Feasibility, One-year Functional and Oncologic Outcomes.

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.

[1]  V. Patel,et al.  Retrograde Release of the Neurovascular Bundle with Preservation of Dorsal Venous Complex During Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Optimizing Functional Outcomes. , 2020, European urology.

[2]  Y. Kohjimoto,et al.  The association of length of the resected membranous urethra with urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy. , 2020, Urology journal.

[3]  A. Basiri,et al.  Revisiting Vesico-urethral anastomosis during open radical retropubic prostatectomy, simple and reproducible technique, a single center experience with 200 cases. , 2019, Urology journal.

[4]  H. Woo,et al.  Comparison of retropubic, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: who is the winner? , 2018, World Journal of Urology.

[5]  M. Baghdadi,et al.  Surgical method influences specimen margins and biochemical recurrence during radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2017, World Journal of Urology.

[6]  V. Patel,et al.  Current status of various neurovascular bundle-sparing techniques in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy , 2016, Journal of Robotic Surgery.

[7]  C. Fiori,et al.  Total Anatomical Reconstruction During Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Implications on Early Recovery of Urinary Continence. , 2016, European urology.

[8]  M. Wirth,et al.  Perioperative Complications after Radical Prostatectomy: Open versus Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Approach , 2013, Urologia Internationalis.

[9]  Abhishek Srivastava,et al.  Functional outcomes following robotic prostatectomy using athermal, traction free risk-stratified grades of nerve sparing , 2013, World Journal of Urology.

[10]  J. Lynch,et al.  Anatomic and technical considerations for optimizing recovery of urinary function during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy , 2013, Current opinion in urology.

[11]  A. Tewari,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. , 2012, Journal of endourology.

[12]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. , 2012, European urology.

[13]  Li-Ming Su,et al.  Comparison of outcomes between pure laparoscopic vs robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a study of comparative effectiveness based upon validated quality of life outcomes , 2012, BJU international.

[14]  U. Capitanio,et al.  Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. , 2012, European urology.

[15]  K. Palmer,et al.  The role of the prostatic vasculature as a landmark for nerve sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. , 2012, European urology.

[16]  A. Tewari,et al.  Anatomical grades of nerve sparing: a risk‐stratified approach to neural‐hammock sparing during robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) , 2011, BJU international.

[17]  K. Palmer,et al.  Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. , 2011, European urology.

[18]  A. Tewari,et al.  Optimizing vesicourethral anastomosis healing after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: lessons learned from three techniques in 1900 patients. , 2010, Journal of endourology.

[19]  M. Menon,et al.  Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technical modifications in 2009. , 2009, European urology.

[20]  Anthony V D'Amico,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. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[21]  A. Shalhav,et al.  Modified clipless antegrade nerve preservation in robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with validated sexual function evaluation. , 2005, Urology.

[22]  P. Walsh,et al.  Effect of methylprednisolone on return of sexual function after nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. , 2004, Urology.

[23]  N. Demartines,et al.  Classification of Surgical Complications: A New Proposal With Evaluation in a Cohort of 6336 Patients and Results of a Survey , 2004, Annals of Surgery.

[24]  A. Moinzadeh,et al.  Urinary incontinence after radical retropubic prostatectomy: the outcome of a surgical technique , 2003, BJU international.

[25]  J. Stanford,et al.  General quality of life 2 years following treatment for prostate cancer: what influences outcomes? Results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[26]  P. Walsh,et al.  Intussusception of the reconstructed bladder neck leads to earlier continence after radical prostatectomy. , 2002, Urology.

[27]  E. Kursh,et al.  Alternative method of nerve-sparing when performing radical retropubic prostatectomy. , 1988, Urology.

[28]  T. Schlomm,et al.  Nerve distribution along the prostatic capsule. , 2007, European urology.

[29]  P. J. Donker,et al.  Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. , 1982, The Journal of urology.