Literature DB >> 21917101

Anatomical grades of nerve sparing: a risk-stratified approach to neural-hammock sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

Ashutosh K Tewari1, Abhishek Srivastava, Michael W Huang, Brian D Robinson, Maria M Shevchuk, Matthieu Durand, Prasanna Sooriakumaran, Sonal Grover, Rajiv Yadav, Nishant Mishra, Sanjay Mohan, Danielle C Brooks, Nusrat Shaikh, Abhinav Khanna, Robert Leung.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: • To report the potency and oncological outcomes of patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) using a risk-stratified approach based on layers of periprostatic fascial dissection. • We also describe the surgical technique of complete hammock preservation or nerve sparing grade 1. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • This is a retrospective study of 2317 patients who had robotic prostatectomy by a single surgeon at a single institution between January 2005 and June 2010. • Included patients were those with ≥ 1 year of follow-up and who were potent preoperatively, defined as having a sexual health inventory for men (SHIM) questionnaire score of >21; thus, the final number of patients in the study cohort was 1263. • Patients were categorized pre-operatively by a risk-stratified approach into risk grades 1-4, where risk grade 1 patients received nerve-sparing grade 1 or complete hammock preservation and so on for risk grades 2-4, as long as intraoperative findings permitted the planned nerve sparing. • We considered return to sexual function post-operatively by two criteria: i) ability to have successful intercourse (score of ≥ 4 on question 2 of the SHIM) and ii) SHIM >21 or return to baseline sexual function.
RESULTS: • There was a significant difference across different NS grades in terms of the percentages of patients who had intercourse and returned to baseline sexual function (P < 0.001), with those that underwent NS grade 1 having the highest rates (90.9% and 81.7%) as compared to NS grades 2 (81.4% and 74.3%), 3 (73.5% and 66.1%), and 4 (62% and 54.5%). • The overall positive surgical margin (PSM) rates for patients with NS grades 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 9.9%, 8.1%, 7.2%, and 8.7%, respectively (P = 0.636). • The extraprostatic extension rates were 11.6%, 14.3%, 29.3%, and 36.2%, respectively (P < 0.001). • Similarly, in patients younger than 60, intercourse and return to baseline sexual function rates were 94.9% and 84.3% for NS grade 1 as compared to 85.5% and 77.2% for NS grades 2, 76.9% and 69% for NS grades 3, and 64.8% and 57.7% for NS Grade 4 (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: • The risk-stratified approach and anatomical technique of neural-hammock sparing described in the present manuscript was effective in improving potency outcomes of patients without compromising cancer control. • Patients with greater degrees of NS had higher rates of intercourse and return to baseline sexual function without an increase in PSM rates.
© 2011 THE AUTHORS. BJU INTERNATIONAL © 2011 BJU INTERNATIONAL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21917101     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10565.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  45 in total

1.  Re: What is the role of NeuroSAFE in robotic radical prostatectomy?

Authors:  Eoin Dinneen; A Haider; J Grierson; T Briggs; R Persad; N Oakley; A Freeman; G Shaw
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2019-04-12

Review 2.  Focusing on sexual rehabilitation besides penile rehabilitation following radical prostatectomy is important.

Authors:  Daphné Vanderhaeghe; Maarten Albersen; Emmanuel Weyne
Journal:  Int J Impot Res       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 2.896

3.  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

Review 4.  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

5.  Is this the ultimate solution to fight erectile dysfunction post radical prostatectomy?

Authors:  Silvia Secco; Aldo Bocciardi; Mattia Piccinelli; Antonio Galfano
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-09

6.  Commentary: Robotic radical prostatectomy is an effective approach for treating localized prostate cancer--is it technique or technician?

Authors:  Ashutosh Tewari; Misop Han
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Intraoperative Optical Biopsy during Robotic Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Using Confocal Endomicroscopy.

Authors:  Aristeo Lopez; Dimitar V Zlatev; Kathleen E Mach; Daniel Bui; Jen-Jane Liu; Robert V Rouse; Theodore Harris; John T Leppert; Joseph C Liao
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2015-11-26       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Functional outcomes following robotic prostatectomy using athermal, traction free risk-stratified grades of nerve sparing.

Authors:  Ashutosh K Tewari; Adnan Ali; Sheela Metgud; Nithin Theckumparampil; Abhishek Srivastava; Francesca Khani; Brian D Robinson; Naveen Gumpeni; Maria M Shevchuk; Matthieu Durand; Prasanna Sooriakumaran; Jinyi Li; Robert Leung; Alexandra Peyser; Siobhan Gruschow; Vinita Asija; Niyati Harneja
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-01-26       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  Evaluation of periprostatic neurovascular fibers before and after radical prostatectomy by means of 1.5 T MRI diffusion tensor imaging.

Authors:  Valerio Di Paola; Adam Cybulski; Salvatore Belluardo; Francesca Cavicchioli; Riccardo Manfredi; Roberto Pozzi Mucelli
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-02-16       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  [Stress incontinence after prostatectomy in treatment reality: results from a rehabilitation clinic].

Authors:  V Lent; H M Schultheis; L Strauß; M K Laaser; S Buntrock
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 0.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.