OBJECTIVES: Urinary incontinence is a significant complication of radical pelvic surgery. A better understanding of the neuroanatomy of the rhabdosphincter has led to the modification of the radical retropubic prostatectomy to optimize the recovery of postoperative urinary control. METHODS: Mock radical retropubic prostatectomy was performed on fresh cadavers to determine which surgical maneuvers could injure what may be the continence nerves. To assess the clinical significance of modifying the radical retropubic prostatectomy based on these anatomic studies, a contemporary series of 60 consecutive patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy with continence nerve preservation was compared with a control group of 38 consecutive patients who had a standard anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. RESULTS: At the level of the prostatic apex, both the pelvic and pudendal nerves gave intrapelvic branches that bilaterally coursed to the external urinary sphincter to enter at the 5 and 7 o'clock positions. The mock radical prostatectomy revealed that the nerves to the external urinary sphincter were most prone to injury when a right angle clamp was used to develop a plane between the posterior rhabdosphincter and anterior rectum and if the urethral anastomotic sutures were placed at the 5 and 7 o'clock positions. In addition, blunt dissection of the tips of the seminal vesicles injured the inferior hypogastric plexus. Modifications to preserve the continence nerves were incorporated in the anatomic radical prostatectomy. Although overall continence rates were similar for the two groups (98.3% for continence nerve-preserving radical prostatectomy versus 92. 1% for standard prostatectomy), continence nerve preservation decreased the time to achieve continence. CONCLUSIONS: During radical retropubic prostatectomy, surgical maneuvers that avoid injury to the continence nerves resulted in the more rapid return of urinary control.
OBJECTIVES:Urinary incontinence is a significant complication of radical pelvic surgery. A better understanding of the neuroanatomy of the rhabdosphincter has led to the modification of the radical retropubic prostatectomy to optimize the recovery of postoperative urinary control. METHODS: Mock radical retropubic prostatectomy was performed on fresh cadavers to determine which surgical maneuvers could injure what may be the continence nerves. To assess the clinical significance of modifying the radical retropubic prostatectomy based on these anatomic studies, a contemporary series of 60 consecutive patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy with continence nerve preservation was compared with a control group of 38 consecutive patients who had a standard anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. RESULTS: At the level of the prostatic apex, both the pelvic and pudendal nerves gave intrapelvic branches that bilaterally coursed to the external urinary sphincter to enter at the 5 and 7 o'clock positions. The mock radical prostatectomy revealed that the nerves to the external urinary sphincter were most prone to injury when a right angle clamp was used to develop a plane between the posterior rhabdosphincter and anterior rectum and if the urethral anastomotic sutures were placed at the 5 and 7 o'clock positions. In addition, blunt dissection of the tips of the seminal vesicles injured the inferior hypogastric plexus. Modifications to preserve the continence nerves were incorporated in the anatomic radical prostatectomy. Although overall continence rates were similar for the two groups (98.3% for continence nerve-preserving radical prostatectomy versus 92. 1% for standard prostatectomy), continence nerve preservation decreased the time to achieve continence. CONCLUSIONS: During radical retropubic prostatectomy, surgical maneuvers that avoid injury to the continence nerves resulted in the more rapid return of urinary control.
Authors: S N Pentyala; J Lee; K Hsieh; W C Waltzer; A Trocchia; L Musacchia; M J Rebecchi; S A Khan Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Wesley W Choi; Marcos P Freire; Jane R Soukup; Lei Yin; Stuart R Lipsitz; Fernando Carvas; Stephen B Williams; Jim C Hu Journal: World J Urol Date: 2010-10-20 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Doreen E Chung; Benjamin Dillon; Jordan Kurta; Alexandra Maschino; Angel Cronin; Jaspreet S Sandhu Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2013-01-23 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: K Beattie; J Symons; S Chopra; C Yuen; R Savdie; R Thanigasalam; A M Haynes; J Matthews; P C Brenner; K Rasiah; R L Sutherland; P D Stricker Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2012-07-26
Authors: Giuseppe Mucciardi; Alessandro Galì; Antonino Inferrera; Antonina Di Benedetto; Luciano Macchione; Massimo Mucciardi; Carlo Magno Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2013-04-17 Impact factor: 2.370