Retrograde Versus Antegrade Nerve Sparing During Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Which Is Better for Achieving Early Functional Recovery?

被引:34
|
作者
Ko, Young Hwii [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Coelho, Rafael F. [1 ,2 ,4 ,5 ]
Sivaraman, Ananthakrishnan [1 ,2 ]
Schatloff, Oscar [1 ,2 ]
Chauhan, Sanket [1 ,2 ]
Abdul-Muhsin, Haidar M. [1 ,2 ]
Carrion, Rair Jose Valero [1 ,2 ]
Palmer, Kenneth J. [1 ,2 ]
Cheon, Jun [1 ,2 ,6 ]
Patel, Vipul R. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Florida Hosp Celebrat Hlth, Global Robot Inst, Celebration, FL 34747 USA
[2] Univ Cent Florida, Sch Med, Orlando, FL 32816 USA
[3] Yeungnam Univ, Dept Urol, Sch Med, Taegu, South Korea
[4] Hosp Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo, Brazil
[5] Inst Canc Estado Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
[6] Korea Univ, Dept Urol, Sch Med, Seoul, South Korea
关键词
Nerve sparing; Robot assisted radical prostatectomy; Erectile dysfunction; Incontinence; SEXUAL FUNCTION; PRESERVATION; CONTINENCE; OUTCOMES; QUALITY; FASCIA;
D O I
10.1016/j.eururo.2012.09.051
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
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. (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier B. V. on behalf of European Association of Urology.
引用
收藏
页码:169 / 177
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Nerve-sparing techniques in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy - anatomical approach
    Czarnogorski, Michal C.
    Settaf-Cherif, Layla
    Koper, Krzysztof
    Petrasz, Piotr
    Ostrowski, Adam
    Juszczak, Kajetan
    Drewa, Tomasz
    Adamowicz, Jan
    EXPERT REVIEW OF MEDICAL DEVICES, 2024, 21 (12) : 1101 - 1110
  • [2] Nerve-sparing techniques and results in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
    Tavukcu, Hasan Huseyin
    Aytac, Omer
    Atug, Fatih
    INVESTIGATIVE AND CLINICAL UROLOGY, 2016, 57 : S172 - S184
  • [3] Anatomic Grading of Nerve Sparing During Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
    Schatloff, Oscar
    Chauhan, Sanket
    Sivaraman, Ananthakrishnan
    Kameh, Darian
    Palmer, Kenneth J.
    Patel, Vipul R.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2012, 61 (04) : 796 - 802
  • [4] The Role of the Prostatic Vasculature as a Landmark for Nerve Sparing During Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
    Patel, Vipul R.
    Schatloff, Oscar
    Chauhan, Sanket
    Sivaraman, Ananthakrishnan
    Valero, Rair
    Coelho, Rafael F.
    Rocco, Bernardo
    Palmer, Kenneth J.
    Kameh, Darian
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2012, 61 (03) : 571 - 576
  • [5] Laparoscopic versus robot-assisted bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: comparison of pentafecta rates for a single surgeon
    Asimakopoulos, Anastasios D.
    Miano, Roberto
    Di Lorenzo, Nicola
    Spera, Enrico
    Vespasiani, Giuseppe
    Mugnier, Camille
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2013, 27 (11): : 4297 - 4304
  • [6] Detrusorrhaphy and Intrafascial Nerve-Sparing During Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy on Recovery of Continence and Potency: Surgical Feasibility, One-Year Functional and Oncologic Outcomes
    Shin, Tae Young
    Lee, Yong Seong
    UROLOGY JOURNAL, 2021, 18 (03) : 314 - 321
  • [7] Nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Current perspectives
    Kumar, Anup
    Patel, Vipul R.
    Panaiyadiyan, Sridhar
    Bhat, Kulthe Ramesh Seetharam
    Moschovas, Marcio Covas
    Nayak, Brusabhanu
    ASIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2021, 8 (01) : 2 - 13
  • [8] Selection of patients for nerve sparing surgery in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
    Vis, Andre N.
    van den Bergh, Roderick C. N.
    van der Poel, Henk G.
    Mottrie, Alexander
    Stricker, Philip D.
    Graefen, Marcus
    Patel, Vipul
    Rocco, Bernardo
    Lissenberg-Witte, Birgit
    van Leeuwen, Pim J.
    BJUI COMPASS, 2022, 3 (01): : 6 - 18
  • [9] Nerve-sparing Techniques During Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Clips
    Zhu, Alec
    Basourakos, Spyridon P.
    Hu, Jim C.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY OPEN SCIENCE, 2022, 44 : 104 - 105
  • [10] Does Surgeon Subjective Nerve Sparing Score Predict Recovery Time of Erectile Function Following Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy?
    Kang, Sung Gu
    Schatloff, Oscar
    Haidar, Abdul Muhsin
    Samavedi, Srinivas
    Palmer, Kenneth J.
    Cheon, Jun
    Patel, Vipul R.
    JOURNAL OF SEXUAL MEDICINE, 2015, 12 (06) : 1490 - 1496