Literature DB >> 23092543

Retrograde versus antegrade nerve sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: which is better for achieving early functional recovery?

Young Hwii Ko1, Rafael F Coelho, Ananthakrishnan Sivaraman, Oscar Schatloff, Sanket Chauhan, Haidar M Abdul-Muhsin, Rair Jose Valero Carrion, Kenneth J Palmer, Jun Cheon, Vipul R Patel.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although the retrograde approach to nerve sparing (NS) aimed at maximizing NS during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has been described, its significant benefits compared to the antegrade approach have not yet been investigated.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of NS approaches on perioperative, pathologic, and functional outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Five hundred one potent (Sexual Health Inventory for Men [SHIM] score >21) men underwent bilateral full NS and were followed up for a minimum of 1 yr. After propensity score matching, 344 patients were selected and were then categorized into two groups. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: RARP with antegrade NS (n=172) or RARP with retrograde NS (n=172). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Functional outcomes were assessed using validated questionnaires. Multivariable logistic regression models were applied. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Positive margin rates were similar (11.1% vs 6.9%; p=0.192), and no correlation with the NS approach was found on regression analysis. At 3, 6, and 9 mo, the potency rate was significantly higher in the retrograde approach (65% vs 80.8% and 72.1% vs 90.1% and 85.3% vs 92.9%, respectively). The multivariable model indicated that the NS approach was an independent predictor for potency recovery at 3, 6, and 9 mo, along with age, gland size, and hyperlipidemia. After adjusting for these predictors, the hazard ratio (HR) for the retrograde relative to the antegrade approach was 2.462 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.482-4.089; p=0.001) at 3, 4.024 (95% CI, 2.171-7.457; p<0.001) at 6, and 2.145 (95% CI, 1.019-4.514; p=0.044) at 9 mo. Regarding continence, the recovery rates at each time point and the mean time to regaining it were similar, and the method of NS had no effect on multivariable analysis. The absence of randomization is a major limitation of this study.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with normal erectile function who underwent bilateral full NS, a retrograde NS approach facilitated early recovery of potency compared to that with an antegrade NS approach without compromising cancer control.
Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23092543     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.09.051

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


  17 in total

1.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP): a new way to training.

Authors:  Raphael Rocha; Rossano Kepler Alvim Fiorelli; Gilberto Buogo; Maurício Rubistein; Rogério Moraes Mattos; Rodrigo Frota; Rafael Ferreira Coelho; Kenneth Palmer; Vipul Patel
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2015-12-11

2.  Safety of selective nerve sparing in high risk prostate cancer during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Anup Kumar; Srinivas Samavedi; Anthony S Bates; Vladimir Mouraviev; Rafael F Coelho; Bernardo Rocco; Vipul R Patel
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-07-19

3.  Predictive factors and oncological outcomes of persistently elevated prostate-specific antigen in patients following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Anup Kumar; Srinivas Samavedi; Vladimir Mouraviev; Anthony S Bates; Rafael F Coelho; Bernardo Rocco; Vipul R Patel
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-05-31

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.  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

6.  Neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: outcomes from 500 consecutive cases in the UK.

Authors:  Jim Adshead; Nikhil Vasdev; Jonathan Noël; Neil H Spencer; Siya Lodia; Seiver Karim; Surina Taneja; Darius Moghanchizadeh; Arvind Nayak; Ashwin Tamhankar; Seema Angra; Rajiv Swamy; Samita Agarwal; Ashish Narula; Tim Lane
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2021-10-30

Review 7.  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

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

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

9.  Retrograde robotic radical prostatectomy: description of a new technique and early perioperative outcomes.

Authors:  Gino J Vricella; Zachary Klaassen; Martha K Terris; Rabii Madi
Journal:  ISRN Urol       Date:  2014-03-10

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.