Literature DB >> 24752607

Do we need the nerve sparing radical prostatectomy techniques (intrafascial vs. interfascial) in men with erectile dysfunction? Results of a single-centre study.

Wael Y Khoder1, Raphaela Waidelich, Michael Seitz, Armin J Becker, Alexander Buchner, Stefan Trittschler, Christian G Stief.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To report effect of different nerve sparing techniques (NS) during radical prostatectomy (RP) (intrafascial-RP vs. interfascial-RP) on post-RP incontinence outcomes (UI) in impotent/erectile dysfunction (ED) men. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 420 impotent/ED patients (International Index of Erectile Function-score <15) with organ-confined prostate cancer were treated with bilateral-NS [intrafascial-RP (239) or interfascial-RP (181)] in our institution. Intrafascial-RP was indicated for biopsy Gleason score ≤6 and PSA ≤10 ng/ml while interfascial-RP for Gleason score ≤7 and higher serum PSA. Seventy-seven patients with bilateral non-NS-RP were taken for comparison. No patient received pre-/postoperative radiation/hormonal therapy or had prostatic enlargement surgery. UI was assessed 3, 12 and 36 months postoperatively by third party. Continence was defined as no pads/day, safety 1 pad/day as separate group, 1-2 pads/day as "mild-incontinence" and >2 pads/day as "incontinence".
RESULTS: All groups had comparable perioperative criteria without significant preoperative morbidities. International Prostate Symptom Score showed severe symptoms in 5 % of patients without correlation to UI. UI-recovery increased until 36 months. Full continence was reported from 56 versus 62 and 53 % patients after intrafascial-RP versus interfascial-RP and wide excision at 3 months, respectively (p = 0.521). Corresponding figures at 12 months were 70 versus 61 versus 51 % (p = 0.114) and at 36 months 85 versus 75 versus 65 % (p = 0.135), respectively. After 12 and 36 months, there was tendency to better UI-results in advantage of NS-technique; best results were achieved in intrafascial-RP group. UI-recovery was age-dependant. Advantage was found in NS-group compared with non-NS-group in older patients (>70 years, p = 0.052).
CONCLUSIONS: Impotent/ED patients have higher chances of recovering full continence after NS-RP. NS should be planned independently of preoperative potencystatus whenever technically and oncologically feasible. Age and lower urinary symptoms are not restrictions. Current data should be considered in preoperative patient counselling.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24752607     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-014-1302-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  25 in total

Review 1.  Factors predicting early return of continence after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jaspreet S Sandhu; James A Eastham
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Nerve-sparing approach during radical prostatectomy is strongly associated with the rate of postoperative urinary continence recovery.

Authors:  Nazareno Suardi; Marco Moschini; Andrea Gallina; Giorgio Gandaglia; Firas Abdollah; Umberto Capitanio; Marco Bianchi; Manuela Tutolo; Niccolò Passoni; Andrea Salonia; Petter Hedlund; Patrizio Rigatti; Francesco Montorsi; Alberto Briganti
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 5.588

3.  Does a nerve-sparing technique or potency affect continence after open radical retropubic prostatectomy?

Authors:  Tracy P Marien; Herbert Lepor
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2008-09-18       Impact factor: 5.588

4.  EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease.

Authors:  Axel Heidenreich; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Malcolm Mason; Vsevolod Matveev; Nicolas Mottet; Hans-Peter Schmid; Theo van der Kwast; Thomas Wiegel; Filliberto Zattoni
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2010-10-28       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  A comparison of outcomes for interfascial and intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Panagiotis Kallidonis; Minh Do; Anja Dietel; Tim Häfner; Robert Rabenalt; George Sakellaropoulos; Roman Ganzer; Uwe Paasch; Lars Christian Horn; Evangelos Liatsikos
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2010-06-22       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Preoperative erectile function is one predictor for post prostatectomy incontinence.

Authors:  S Wille; A Heidenreich; R Hofmann; U Engelmann
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.696

7.  Cancer statistics, 2010.

Authors:  Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca Siegel; Jiaquan Xu; Elizabeth Ward
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2010-07-07       Impact factor: 508.702

8.  Long-term quality-of-life outcomes after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting: the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group-4 randomised trial.

Authors:  Eva Johansson; Gunnar Steineck; Lars Holmberg; Jan-Erik Johansson; Tommy Nyberg; Mirja Ruutu; Anna Bill-Axelson
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2011-08-05       Impact factor: 41.316

9.  Urinary outcomes are significantly affected by nerve sparing quality during radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Deborah R Kaye; M Eric Hyndman; Robert L Segal; Lynda Z Mettee; Bruce J Trock; Zhaoyong Feng; Li-Ming Su; Trinity J Bivalacqua; Christian P Pavlovich
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 2.649

10.  The role of membranous urethral afferent autonomic innervation in the continence mechanism after nerve sparing radical prostatectomy: a clinical and prospective study.

Authors:  Marcos Vinicius Guarnieri Catarin; Gilberto Mastrocola Manzano; João A M Nóbrega; Fernando G Almeida; Miguel Srougi; Homero Bruschini
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-10-19       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  7 in total

1.  Extended versus limited pelvic lymph node dissection during bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy and its effect on continence and erectile function recovery: long-term results and trifecta rates of a comparative analysis.

Authors:  Georgios Hatzichristodoulou; Stefan Wagenpfeil; Gudrun Wagenpfeil; Tobias Maurer; Thomas Horn; Kathleen Herkommer; Marie Hegemann; Jürgen E Gschwend; Hubert Kübler
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-09-29       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Comparison of the efficacy of the early LI-SWT plus daily tadalafil with daily tadalafil only as penile rehabilitation for postprostatectomy erectile dysfunction.

Authors:  Jae-Wook Chung; Tae Gyun Kwon; Se Won Jang; Eun Hye Lee; So Young Chun; Yun-Sok Ha; Seock Hwan Choi; Jun Nyung Lee; Bum Soo Kim; Hyun Tae Kim; See Hyung Kim; Tae-Hwan Kim; Eun Sang Yoo
Journal:  Int J Impot Res       Date:  2022-03-28       Impact factor: 2.408

3.  Development of a Patient-Based Model for Estimating Operative Times for Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Neil B Huben; Ahmed A Hussein; Paul R May; Michelle Whittum; Collin Krasowski; Youssef E Ahmed; Zhe Jing; Hijab Khan; Hyung L Kim; Thomas Schwaab; Willie Underwood; Eric C Kauffman; James L Mohler; Khurshid A Guru
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 2.942

4.  Intrafascial versus interfascial nerve sparing in radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hong Weng; Xian-Tao Zeng; Sheng Li; Xiang-Yu Meng; Ming-Jun Shi; Da-Lin He; Xing-Huan Wang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-09-13       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Very Early Continence After Radical Prostatectomy and Its Influencing Factors.

Authors:  Lena Theissen; Felix Preisser; Mike Wenzel; Clara Humke; Frederik C Roos; Luis A Kluth; Andreas Becker; Severine Banek; Boris Bodelle; Jens Köllermann; Felix K H Chun; Philipp Mandel
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2019-10-25

6.  Effect of Nerve-Sparing Radical Prostatectomy on Urinary Continence in Patients With Preoperative Erectile Dysfunction.

Authors:  Yong Hyun Park; Oh Seong Kwon; Sung-Hoo Hong; Sae Woong Kim; Tae-Kon Hwang; Ji Youl Lee
Journal:  Int Neurourol J       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 2.835

7.  Antioxidative mechanism of Lycium barbarum polysaccharides promotes repair and regeneration following cavernous nerve injury.

Authors:  Zhan-Kui Zhao; Hong-Lian Yu; Bo Liu; Hui Wang; Qiong Luo; Xie-Gang Ding
Journal:  Neural Regen Res       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 5.135

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.