Literature DB >> 20573384

A comparison of outcomes for interfascial and intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy.

Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg1, Panagiotis Kallidonis, Minh Do, Anja Dietel, Tim Häfner, Robert Rabenalt, George Sakellaropoulos, Roman Ganzer, Uwe Paasch, Lars Christian Horn, Evangelos Liatsikos.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcome of intrafascial nerve-sparing endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (nsEERPE) with interfascial (standard) nsEERPE.
METHODS: Four-hundred patients underwent nsEERPE; 200 patients underwent bilateral intrafascial nsEERPE (group A) and 200 bilateral standard nsEERPE (group B). Tumor stages of T1 and T2a, prostate-specific antigen level <10 ng/mL, maximal Gleason score 3+4 (not 4+3) and preoperative potency were considered as candidates for nsEERPE. Patients were randomized to the aforementioned groups. Perioperative data, and functional and oncological outcome were reviewed. Patients not requiring any pads or requiring 1 pad for safety were defined as continent. Patients responding positively to sexual encounter profile diary question numbers 2, 3, and 5 were considered as potent.
RESULTS: Perioperative data were similar between groups. At 3 months, 74% of group A and and 63% of group B were continent. At 6 months, the respective figures were 87.9% and 76.2%, respectively (A, B). At 12 months, 93.2% of group A and 90.7% of group B were continent. Potency rates of group A were 93.5% (<55 years), 83.3% (55-65 years), and 60% (>65 years) at 12 months. The respective figures for Group B were 77.1%, 50%, and 40%. Positive surgical margins were detected in 9% and 9.5% of groups A and B, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Intrafascial nsEERPE provides significantly better potency in patients <55 years of age at 12 months and in patients 55-65 years of age at 6 and 12 months, with probably limited effect on the oncological outcome. Significantly improved continence was observed at 3 and 6 months in favor of intrafascial nsEEPRE.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20573384     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.03.089

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  22 in total

1.  [Radical prostatectomy - pro laparoscopic].

Authors:  H M Do; S Holze; H Qazi; A Dietel; T Häfner; E Liatsikos; J-U Stolzenburg
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  A matched-pair comparison between bilateral intrafascial and interfascial nerve-sparing techniques in extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Tao Zheng; Xu Zhang; Xin Ma; Hong-Zhao Li; Jiang-Pin Gao; Wei Cai; Jun Dong; Guang-Fu Chen; Bao-Jun Wang; Tao-Ping Shi; Er-Lin Song; Wei-Hao Chen; Qing-Bo Huang
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2013-05-27       Impact factor: 3.285

3.  Impact of Partin nomogram on presurgical planning: intrafascial versus interfascial nerve sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jeongyun Jeong; Eun Yong Choi; Dong Il Kang; Dong-Hyeon Lee; Isaac Yi Kim
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2011-01-20

4.  Do we need the nerve sparing radical prostatectomy techniques (intrafascial vs. interfascial) in men with erectile dysfunction? Results of a single-centre study.

Authors:  Wael Y Khoder; Raphaela Waidelich; Michael Seitz; Armin J Becker; Alexander Buchner; Stefan Trittschler; Christian G Stief
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-04-22       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 5.  Impact of Pelvic Anatomical Changes Caused by Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Yoshifumi Kadono; Takahiro Nohara; Shohei Kawaguchi; Hiroaki Iwamoto; Hiroshi Yaegashi; Kazuyoshi Shigehara; Kouji Izumi; Atsushi Mizokami
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-21       Impact factor: 6.575

6.  Posterior reconstruction and outcomes of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a high-risk setting.

Authors:  U Anceschi; M Gaffi; C Molinari; C Anceschi
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2013 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.172

Review 7.  Literature review of factors affecting continence after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Dalibor Pacik; Michal Fedorko
Journal:  Saudi Med J       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 1.484

8.  Prospective comparison of one year follow-up outcomes for the open complete intrafascial retropubic versus interfascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Wael Y Khoder; Raphaela Waidelich; Alexander Buchner; Armin J Becker; Christian G Stief
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2014-07-01

9.  Histological evaluation of nerve sparing technique in robotic assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Kazushi Tanaka; Katsumi Shigemura; Nobuyuki Hinata; Mototsugu Muramaki; Hideaki Miyake; Masato Fujisawa
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2014-07

Review 10.  Prevention and management of post prostatectomy erectile dysfunction.

Authors:  Andrea Salonia; Giulia Castagna; Paolo Capogrosso; Fabio Castiglione; Alberto Briganti; Francesco Montorsi
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2015-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.