Literature DB >> 21620561

Stepwise approach for nerve sparing without countertraction during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: technique and outcomes.

Keith J Kowalczyk1, Andy C Huang, Nathanael D Hevelone, Stuart R Lipsitz, Hua-yin Yu, William D Ulmer, Joshua R Kaplan, Sunil Patel, Paul L Nguyen, Jim C Hu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although subtle technical variation affects potency preservation during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP), most prostatectomy studies focus on achieving the optimal anatomic nerve-sparing dissection plane. However, the impact of active assistant/surgeon neurovascular bundle (NVB) countertraction on sexual function outcomes has not been studied or quantified.
OBJECTIVE: To illustrate technique and compare sexual function outcomes for nerve sparing without (NS-0C) versus with (NS-C) assistant and/or surgeon NVB countertraction. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a retrospective study of 342 NS-0C versus 268 NS-C RARP procedures performed between August 2008 and February 2011. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: RARP. MEASUREMENTS: We used the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) sexual function and potency scores, estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, and positive surgical margin (PSM). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In unadjusted analysis, men undergoing NS-0C versus NS-C were older, had worse baseline sexual function, higher biopsy and pathologic Gleason grade, and higher preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels (all p ≤ 0.023). However, NS-0C versus NS-C was associated with higher 5-mo sexual function scores (20 vs 10; p < 0.001), and this difference was accentuated for bilateral intrafascial nerve sparing in preoperatively potent men (35.8 vs 16.6; p < 0.001). Similarly, 5-mo potency for preoperatively potent men was better with bilateral intrafascial NS-0C versus NS-C (45.0% vs 28.4%; p = 0.039). However, no difference in sexual function or potency was observed at 12 mo. In adjusted analyses, NS-0C versus NS-C was associated with improved 5-mo sexual function (parameter estimate: 10.90; standard error: 2.16; p < 0.001) and potency (odds ratio: 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.83; p = 0.046). NS-0C versus NS-WC was associated with shorter operative times (p = 0.001) and higher EBL (p = 0.001); however, there were no significant differences in PSM. Limitations include the retrospective, single-surgeon study design and smaller numbers for 12-mo comparison.
CONCLUSIONS: Reliance on countertraction to facilitate dissecting NVB away from the prostate leads to neuropraxia and delayed recovery of sexual function and potency. Subtle technical modification to dissect the prostate away from the NVB without countertraction enables earlier return of sexual function and potency.
Copyright © 2011 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21620561     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.05.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  18 in total

1.  Are We Improving Erectile Function Recovery After Radical Prostatectomy? Analysis of Patients Treated over the Last Decade.

Authors:  Paolo Capogrosso; Emily A Vertosick; Nicole E Benfante; James A Eastham; Peter J Scardino; Andrew J Vickers; John P Mulhall
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2018-09-17       Impact factor: 20.096

2.  Effect of minimizing tension during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy on urinary function recovery.

Authors:  Keith J Kowalczyk; Andy C Huang; Nathanael D Hevelone; Stuart R Lipsitz; Hua-yin Yu; John H Lynch; Jim C Hu
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-11-08       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 3.  Current status of various neurovascular bundle-sparing techniques in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Anup Kumar; Sarvesh Tandon; Srinivas Samavedi; Vladimir Mouraviev; Anthony S Bates; Vipul R Patel
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-06-01

4.  Can dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane accelerate the return to potency after a nerve-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy? Propensity score-matched analysis.

Authors:  Gabriel Ogaya-Pinies; Hariharan Palayapalam-Ganapathi; Travis Rogers; Eduardo Hernandez-Cardona; Bernardo Rocco; R F Coelho; Cathy Jenson; Vipul R Patel
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-06-27

Review 5.  Does robotic prostatectomy meet its promise in the management of prostate cancer?

Authors:  Kuo-How Huang; Stacey C Carter; Jim C Hu
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 6.  Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Maneuvers to Attenuate Erectile Dysfunction: Technical Description and Video Compilation.

Authors:  Spyridon P Basourakos; Keith Kowalczyk; Marcio Covas Moschovas; Vanessa Dudley; Andrew J Hung; Jonathan E Shoag; Vipul Patel; Jim C Hu
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2021-11       Impact factor: 2.942

7.  Feasibility study of a clinically-integrated randomized trial of modifications to radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Caroline Bennette; Karim Touijer; Jonathan Coleman; Vincent Laudone; Brett Carver; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2012-02-24       Impact factor: 2.279

8.  Erectile dysfunction in robotic radical prostatectomy: Outcomes and management.

Authors:  Patrick Whelan; Shahid Ekbal; Ajay Nehra
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2014-10

Review 9.  Advances in Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy over Time.

Authors:  Emma F P Jacobs; Ronald Boris; Timothy A Masterson
Journal:  Prostate Cancer       Date:  2013-11-12

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.