Literature DB >> 22230713

Anatomic grading of nerve sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Oscar Schatloff1, Sanket Chauhan, Ananthakrishnan Sivaraman, Darian Kameh, Kenneth J Palmer, Vipul R Patel.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Because of the lack of intraoperative visual cues, the amount of nerve sparing (NS) intended by the surgeon does not always correspond to what is actually performed during surgery.
OBJECTIVE: Describe a standardized NS grading system based on intraoperative visual cues. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 133 consecutive patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) by a single surgeon were evaluated. The surgeon intraoperatively graded the NS independently for either side as follows: 1=no NS; 2=<50% NS; 3=50% NS; 4=75% NS; 5= ≥ 95% NS. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: RARP; detailed description of a five-point NS grading system. MEASUREMENTS: The area of residual nerve tissue on prostatectomy specimens was compared with the intraoperative NS score (NSS). The rate of positive surgical margins (PSMs) according to the NSS is also reported. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In all, 52.6% of operated sides (140 of 266 sides) had NSS 5, 30.1% (80 of 266) had NSS 4, 2.3% (6 of 266) had NSS 3, 13.2% (35 of 266) had NSS 2, and 1.9% (5 of 266) had NSS 1. The area of residual nerve tissue was significantly different among the different NSSs: median area (interquartile range) for NSS 5: 0.5 (0-2) mm(2); for NSS 4: 3 (0-8) mm(2); for NSS 3: 13 (7-23) mm(2); for NSS 2: 14 (8-24) mm(2); and for NSS 1: 57 (56-165) mm(2) (p<0.001). Overall, 9.02% of the patients (12 of 133 patients) had a PSM, with 8.3% (9 of 108) for pT2 and 12% (3 of 25) for pT3. Side-specific PSMs according to NSS were 3.6% (5 of 140) for NSS 5, 7.5% (6 of 80) for NSS 4, 16.7% (1 of 6) for NSS 3, 5.7% (2 of 35) for NSS 2, and 0% (0 of 5) for NSS 1. A limitation of our study is that the key anatomic landmarks are not recognizable in every case, and this technique might not be easy to perform during the early learning curve.
CONCLUSIONS: We believe that the visual cues exposed in this article will help surgeons achieve more consistent NS during RARP. Copyright Â
© 2011 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22230713     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.12.048

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


  31 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  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 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.  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

5.  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

6.  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

7.  The value of periprostatic fascia thickness and fascia preservation as prognostic factors of erectile function after nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Nikolaos Grivas; Rosanne C van der Roest; Clarize M de Korne; Gijs H KleinJan; Karolina Sikorska; Ivo G Schoots; Corinne Tillier; Bram van der Broek; Kees Jalink; Stijn W T J P Heijmink; Tessa Buckle; Fijs W B van Leeuwen; Henk G van der Poel
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-06-23       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Recommendations on robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a Brazilian experts' consensus.

Authors:  Eliney Ferreira Faria; Carlos Vaz Melo Maciel; André Berger; Anuar Mitre; Breno Dauster; Celso Heitor Freitas; Clovis Fraga; Daher Chade; Marcos Dall'Oglio; Francisco Carvalho; Franz Campos; Gustavo Franco Carvalhal; Gustavo Caserta Lemos; Gustavo Guimarães; Hamilton Zampolli; Joao Ricardo Alves; Joao Pádua Manzano; Marco Antônio Fortes; Marcos Flavio Holanda Rocha; Mauricio Rubinstein; Murilo Luz; Pedro Romanelli; Rafael Coelho; Raphael Rocha; Roberto Dias Machado; Rodolfo Borges Dos Reis; Stenio Zequi; Romulo Guida; Valdair Muglia; Marcos Tobias-Machado
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2021-01-11

9.  Retzius-sparing versus standard robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Joel E Rosenberg; Jae Hung Jung; Zach Edgerton; Hunju Lee; Solam Lee; Caitlin J Bakker; Philipp Dahm
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-08-18

Review 10.  Robotic prostatectomy: an update on functional and oncologic outcomes.

Authors:  Gabriele Cozzi; Elisa De Lorenzis; Carlotta Palumbo; Pietro Acquati; Giancarlo Albo; Paolo Dell'orto; Angelica Grasso; Bernardo Rocco
Journal:  Ecancermedicalscience       Date:  2013-09-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.