Thomas Bessede1,2,3, Prasanna Sooriakumaran4,5, Atsushi Takenaka6, Ash Tewari7. 1. Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, NY, 10029, USA. thomas.bessede@gmail.com. 2. U1195, Univ. Paris Sud, INSERM, Université Paris-Saclay, 94270, Le Kremlin-Bicetre, France. thomas.bessede@gmail.com. 3. Department of Urology, Hopitaux Universitaires Paris-Sud, APHP, 94 270, Le Kremlin-Bicetre, France. thomas.bessede@gmail.com. 4. Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 5. Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 6. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, Tottori, Japan. 7. Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, NY, 10029, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review the anatomical facts of urethral sphincter (US) innervation discovered over the last three decades and to determine the implications for continence recovery after radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS: Using the PubMed® database, we searched for peer-reviewed articles in English between January 1985 and September 2015, with the following terms: 'urethral sphincter,' 'urethral rhabdosphincter,' 'urinary continence and nerve supply' and 'neuroanatomy and nerve sparing.' The anatomical methodology, number of bodies examined, data, figures, relevant facts and text were analyzed. RESULTS: Seventeen articles on 254 anatomical subjects were reviewed. Coexisting pathways were described in every article. Dissection, histology, simulation or electron microscopy evidence supported arguments for somatic and autonomic pathways. From the most to the least substantiated, somatic sphincteric fibers were described extra- or intrapelvic as: direct from the distal pudendal nerve (PuN), recurrent from the dorsal nerve of the penis, from the proximal PuN with an intrapelvic course, extrapudendal somatic fibers dispersed among autonomic pelvic fibers. From the pelvic plexus, or from the neurovascular bundles, autonomic fibers to the US have been described in 13 of the reviewed articles, with at least each of the available anatomical methods. CONCLUSION: Because continence depends on a number of factors, it is challenging to delineate the specific impact of periprostatic nerve sparing on continence, but the anatomical data suggest that RP surgeons should steer toward the preservation and protection of these nerves whenever possible.
PURPOSE: To review the anatomical facts of urethral sphincter (US) innervation discovered over the last three decades and to determine the implications for continence recovery after radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS: Using the PubMed® database, we searched for peer-reviewed articles in English between January 1985 and September 2015, with the following terms: 'urethral sphincter,' 'urethral rhabdosphincter,' 'urinary continence and nerve supply' and 'neuroanatomy and nerve sparing.' The anatomical methodology, number of bodies examined, data, figures, relevant facts and text were analyzed. RESULTS: Seventeen articles on 254 anatomical subjects were reviewed. Coexisting pathways were described in every article. Dissection, histology, simulation or electron microscopy evidence supported arguments for somatic and autonomic pathways. From the most to the least substantiated, somatic sphincteric fibers were described extra- or intrapelvic as: direct from the distal pudendal nerve (PuN), recurrent from the dorsal nerve of the penis, from the proximal PuN with an intrapelvic course, extrapudendal somatic fibers dispersed among autonomic pelvic fibers. From the pelvic plexus, or from the neurovascular bundles, autonomic fibers to the US have been described in 13 of the reviewed articles, with at least each of the available anatomical methods. CONCLUSION: Because continence depends on a number of factors, it is challenging to delineate the specific impact of periprostatic nerve sparing on continence, but the anatomical data suggest that RP surgeons should steer toward the preservation and protection of these nerves whenever possible.
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
Authors: Gunnar Steineck; Anders Bjartell; Jonas Hugosson; Elin Axén; Stefan Carlsson; Johan Stranne; Anna Wallerstedt; Josefin Persson; Ulrica Wilderäng; Thordis Thorsteinsdottir; Ove Gustafsson; Mikael Lagerkvist; Thomas Jiborn; Eva Haglind; Peter Wiklund Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Donald L Pick; Kathryn Osann; Douglas Skarecky; Navneet Narula; David S Finley; Thomas E Ahlering Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-01-18 Impact factor: 5.588
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
Authors: Mary F Barbe; Alan S Braverman; Danielle M Salvadeo; Sandra M Gomez-Amaya; Neil S Lamarre; Justin M Brown; Elise J De; Brian S McIntyre; Emily P Day; Geneva E Cruz; Nagat Frara; Michael R Ruggieri Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2019-11-13 Impact factor: 2.696