Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Clinical Research
  • Published:

Feasibility and continence outcomes of extended prostatic urethral preservation during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Abstract

Background

The prostatic urethra is conventionally resected during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). We describe the technical feasibility and urinary continence outcomes of extended prostatic urethral preservation (EPUP) during RARP.

Methods

A single surgeon at a National Comprehensive Cancer Network institute performed 48 consecutive RARP operations using EPUP from March 2014 to March 2016, during which time 177 conventional non-EPUP RARP operations were performed by other surgeons. Prior to this period, the EPUP surgeon had performed 17 non-EPUP RARP operations over 15 months. Total intracorporeal urethral length (IUL) preserved during EPUP was measured intraoperatively. Associations of EPUP and IUL with continence recovery rates and/or times were tested in Fisher’s exact and log rank univariate analyses and Cox logistic regression multivariable analyses.

Results

Median IUL preserved during EPUP was 4.0 cm (range 2.5–6.0 cm), and urethral dissections typically spanned the prostatic apex to mid-gland or base. Seven-week continence rates were significantly higher with versus without EPUP. EPUP patient rates of using 0 or 0–1 pads per day immediately after catheter removal were 19% and 35%, respectively. These rates increased significantly (53% and 76%, respectively), as did the IUL preserved (median 5.0 cm), among more recent EPUP patients (n = 17), which suggested a learning curve. In multivariable analyses including all patients, an EPUP approach was an independent predictor of faster continence recovery. In multivariable analyses of the EPUP subset, a longer IUL preserved was independently associated with faster continence recovery. No EPUP patient had a urethral fossa positive margin, and apical positive margins were similarly infrequent among EPUP and non-EPUP patients.

Conclusions

EPUP is technically feasible during RARP and associated with faster continence recovery. Future investigation into the generalizability of these findings and the oncologic safety of EPUP is warranted.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boorjian SA, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Guillonneau B, Karnes RJ, Moul JW, et al. A critical analysis of the long-term impact of radical prostatectomy on cancer control and function outcomes. Eur Urol. 2012;61:664–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Vora AA, Dajani D, Lynch JH, Kowalczyk KJ. Anatomic and technical considerations for optimizing recovery of urinary function during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Curr Opin Urol. 2013;23:78–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62:405–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hatiboglu G, Teber D, Tichy D, Pahernik S, Hadaschik B, Nyarangi-Dix J, et al. Predictive factors for immediate continence after radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2016;34:113–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Asimakopoulos AD, Annino F, D’Orazio A, Pereira CF, Mugnier C, Hoepffner JL, et al. Complete periprostatic anatomy preservation during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP): the new pubovesical complex-sparing technique. Eur Urol. 2010;58:407–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Orvieto MA, Sivaraman A, Palmer KJ, Coughlin G, et al. Influence of modified posterior reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter on early recovery of continence and anastomotic leakage rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2011;59:72–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee DI, Wedmid A, Mendoza P, Sharma S, Walicki M, Hastings R, et al. Bladder neck plication stitch: a novel technique during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy to improve recovery of urinary continence. J Endourol. 2011;25:1873–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Menon M, Muhletaler F, Campos M, Peabody JO. Assessment of early continence after reconstruction of the periprostatic tissues in patients undergoing computer assisted (robotic) prostatectomy: results of a 2 group parallel randomized controlled trial. J Urol. 2008;180:1018–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Patel VR, Coelho RF, Palmer KJ, Rocco B. Periurethral suspension stitch during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of the technique and continence outcomes. Eur Urol. 2009;56:472–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Porpiglia F, Fiori C, Grande S, Morra I, Scarpa RM. Selective versus standard ligature of the deep venous complex during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: effects on continence, blood loss, and margin status. Eur Urol. 2009;55:1377–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rocco F, Carmignani L, Acquati P, Gadda F, Dell’Orto P, Rocco B, et al. Early continence recovery after open radical prostatectomy with restoration of the posterior aspect of the rhabdosphincter. Eur Urol. 2007;52:376–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Rocco B, Cozzi G, Spinelli MG, Coelho RF, Patel VR, Tewari A, et al. Posterior musculofascial reconstruction after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2012;62:779–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chopra SSA, Sooriakumaran P, Tewari A. Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: the technique. In: Tewari A, editor. Prostate Cancer: A Comprehensive Perspective. London: Springer; 2013. p. 691–7.

  14. Kingsnorth AN, Skandalakis PN, Colborn GL, Weidman TA, Skandalakis LJ, Skandalakis JE. Embryology, anatomy, and surgical applications of the preperitoneal space. Surg Clin N Am. 2000;80:1–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Freire MP, Weinberg AC, Lei Y, Soukup JR, Lipsitz SR, Prasad SM, et al. Anatomic bladder neck preservation during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of technique and outcomes. Eur Urol 2009;56:972–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. You YC, Kim TH, Sung GT. Effect of bladder neck preservation and posterior urethral reconstruction during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for urinary continence. Korean J Urol. 2012;53:29–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. von Bodman C, Matsushita K, Savage C, Matikainen MP, Eastham JA, Scardino PT, et al. Recovery of urinary function after radical prostatectomy: predictors of urinary function on preoperative prostate magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol. 2012;187:945–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hakimi AA, Faleck DM, Agalliu I, Rozenblit AM, Chernyak V, Ghavamian R. Preoperative and intraoperative measurements of urethral length as predictors of continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2011;25:1025–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mizutani Y, Uehara H, Fujisue Y, Takagi S, Nishida T, Inamoto T, et al. Urinary continence following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: association with postoperative membranous urethral length measured using real-time intraoperative transrectal ultrasonography. Oncol Lett. 2012;3:181–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hammerer PHH. Urodynamic evaluation of changes in urinary control after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 1997;157:233–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Schlomm T, Heinzer H, Steuber T, Salomon G, Engel O, Michl U, et al. Full functional-length urethral sphincter preservation during radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2011;60:320–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. van Randenborgh H, Paul R, Kubler H, Breul J, Hartung R. Improved urinary continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy with preparation of a long, partially intraprostatic portion of the membraneous urethra: an analysis of 1013 consecutive cases. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2004;7:253–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mohler JL, Armstrong AJ, Bahnson RR, D’Amico AV, Davis BJ, Eastham JA, et al. Prostate cancer, version 1.2016. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2016;14:19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Doshi C, Vacchio M, Attwood K, Murekeyisoni C, Mehedint DC, Badkhshan S, et al. Clinical significance of prospectively assigned Gleason tertiary pattern 4 in contemporary Gleason score 3+3=6 prostate cancer. Prostate. 2016;76:715–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Oelrich TM. The urethral sphincter muscle in the male. Am J Anat. 1980;158:229–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Wallner C, Dabhoiwala NF, DeRuiter MC, Lamers WH. The anatomical components of urinary continence. Eur Urol. 2009;55:932–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hamada A, Razdan S, Etafy MH, Fagin R, Razdan S. Early return of continence in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy using modified maximal urethral length preservation technique. J Endourol. 2014;28:930–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Statistical support and Biostatistics support were provided by National Cancer Institute grant P30CA016056

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric C. Kauffman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nunez Bragayrac, L.A., Hussein, A.A., Attwood, K. et al. Feasibility and continence outcomes of extended prostatic urethral preservation during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 23, 286–294 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-019-0173-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-019-0173-y

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links