Literature DB >> 20727065

Subjective characterization of nerve sparing predicts recovery of erectile function after radical prostatectomy: defining the utility of a nerve sparing grading system.

Daniel J Moskovic1, Hannah Alphs, Christian J Nelson, Farhang Rabbani, James Eastham, Karim Touijer, Bertrand Guillonneau, Peter T Scardino, John P Mulhall.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a common technique for managing prostate cancer. Concern regarding functional outcomes in patients prompted the development of nerve sparing to improve recovery of erectile function. AIM: To assess if a cumulative nerve damage grading system is a more precise predictor of recovery of erectile function as compared to the current "all-or-none" grading system.
METHODS: Baseline demographic, medical history, and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF)-erectile function domain (EFD) scores were collected. At the time of RP, patients were assigned a nerve sparing score (NSS) by their surgeon for each neurovascular bundle (left and right) to assess the quality of intraoperative nerve sparing (1-complete preservation, 4-complete resection). Patients completed IIEF questionnaires at 24 months after RP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Group comparisons and multiple regression analyses were used to test the association between the NSS and IIEF-EFD scores for patients with preoperative EFD scores ≥ 24.
RESULTS: A total of 173 patients were included in this analysis. Mean age for patients was 59, and 62% of patients had at least one comorbidity. Baseline EFD scores were comparable between all NSS assignments. At 24 months, EFD scores were reduced by 7.2, 11.6, 13.9, and 15.4 points for patients with NSS grades of 2, 3, 4, and 5-8, respectively (P < 0.01). Multivariate analysis demonstrated lower NSS predicted recovery of erectile function at 24 months (P = 0.001), as did age (P = 0.001) and baseline EFD score (P = 0.02).
CONCLUSION: Our data support the adoption of a subjectively assigned NSS to more precisely predict erectile function outcomes and suggest that even minor nerve trauma significantly impairs the recovery of erectile function after procedures classically regarded as having achieved bilateral nerve sparing. Further studies are needed to identify the optimal NSS system.
© 2010 International Society for Sexual Medicine.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20727065     DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.01972.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Sex Med        ISSN: 1743-6095            Impact factor:   3.802


  9 in total

1.  Erectile Function Recovery after Radical Prostatectomy in Men with High Risk Features.

Authors:  Pedro Recabal; Melissa Assel; John E Musser; Ronald J Caras; Daniel D Sjoberg; Jonathan A Coleman; John P Mulhall; Raul O Parra; Peter T Scardino; Karim Touijer; James A Eastham; Vincent P Laudone
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-02-22       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy outcomes in obese and extremely obese men.

Authors:  Debasish Sundi; Adam C Reese; Lynda Z Mettee; Bruce J Trock; Christian P Pavlovich
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2013-07-13       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  Association between masturbation and functional outcome in the postoperative course after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Valentin H Meissner; Sonja Dumler; Martina Kron; Stefan Schiele; Veronika E Goethe; Andreas Bannowsky; Jürgen E Gschwend; Kathleen Herkommer
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-06

4.  Predictive factors for return of erectile function in robotic radical prostatectomy: case series from a single centre.

Authors:  F J Garcia; P D Violette; G B Brock; S E Pautler
Journal:  Int J Impot Res       Date:  2014-08-07       Impact factor: 2.896

5.  Exploratory Decision-Tree Modeling of Data from the Randomized REACTT Trial of Tadalafil Versus Placebo to Predict Recovery of Erectile Function After Bilateral Nerve-Sparing Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Francesco Montorsi; Matthias Oelke; Carsten Henneges; Gerald Brock; Andrea Salonia; Gianluca d'Anzeo; Andrea Rossi; John P Mulhall; Hartwig Büttner
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2016-03-03       Impact factor: 20.096

6.  Newer concepts in neural anatomy and neurovascular preservation in robotic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Sailaja Pisipati; Adnan Ali; Rao S Mandalapu; George K Haines Iii; Paras Singhal; Balaji N Reddy; Robert Leung; Ashutosh K Tewari
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2014-10

7.  Prostate MRI prior to radical prostatectomy: effects on nerve sparing and pathological margin status.

Authors:  Sasha C Druskin; Jen-Jane Liu; Allen Young; Zhaoyong Feng; Seyed S Dianat; Wesley W Ludwig; Bruce J Trock; Katarzyna J Macura; Christian P Pavlovich
Journal:  Res Rep Urol       Date:  2017-04-18

8.  Site-dependent differences in the composite fibers of male pelvic plexus branches: an immunohistochemical analysis of donated elderly cadavers.

Authors:  Kuniyasu Muraoka; Shuichi Morizane; Keisuke Hieda; Masashi Honda; Takehiro Sejima; Gen Murakami; Shin-Ichi Abe; Atsushi Takenaka
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2018-05-22       Impact factor: 2.264

Review 9.  Penile rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy: does it work?

Authors:  Giorgio Gandaglia; Nazareno Suardi; Vito Cucchiara; Marco Bianchi; Shahrokh F Shariat; Morgan Roupret; Andrea Salonia; Francesco Montorsi; Alberto Briganti
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2015-04
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.