Introduction: Improved visualization and magnification in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) has tempted many urologists to dissect the neurovascular bundle closer to the prostate following the layers of the pseudo-capsule of the prostate. This might bear a higher risk of decreased tumor control. Materials and Methods: An analysis of a consecutive series of 186 patients who underwent RALRP at our institution was performed. The outcome of patients with intrafascial nerve-sparing (INS) was compared with the outcome of patients who underwent interfascial, extrafascial or no nerve-sparing (non-INS). Results: A total of 80 patients (43.0%) received INS. The overall R1 rate was 27.9%. For pT2 tumors the rate of R1 was 33.8% in INS versus 14.8% in non-INS (odds ratio 2.936, 95% confidence interval 1.338–6.443, p = 0.007). Recurrence-free survival was significantly shorter in INS (p = 0.05; hazard ratio 3.791). Conclusion: The intrafascial dissection technique for RALRP bears a high risk of incomplete resection in localized prostate cancer resulting in unfavorable outcome.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, Prostatectomy, Laparoscopic surgery, Robotics, Intrafascial nerve-sparing
1.
Herrmann TR, Rabenalt R, Stolzenburg JU, Liatsikos EN, Imkamp F, Tezval H, Gross AJ, Jonas U, Burchardt M: Oncological and functional results of open, robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does surgical approach and surgical experience matter? World J Urol 2007;25:149–160.
2.
Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, Guillonneau B, Vallancien G: Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology 2002;60:864–868.
3.
Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A, Graefen M, Guazzoni G, Guillonneau B, Menon M, Montorsi F, Patel V, Rassweiler J, Van Poppel H: Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 2009;55:1037–1063.
4.
Di Pierro GB, Baumeister P, Stucki P, Beatrice J, Danuser H, Mattei A: A prospective trial comparing consecutive series of open retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a centre with a limited caseload. Eur Urol 2011;59:1–6.
5.
Tewari A, Peabody JO, Fischer M, Sarle R, Vallancien G, Delmas V, Hassan M, Bansal A, Hemal AK, Guillonneau B, Menon M: An operative and anatomic study to help in nerve-sparing during laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2003;43:444–454.
6.
Costello AJ, Brooks M, Cole OJ: Anatomical studies of the neurovascular bundle and cavernosal nerves. BJU Int 2004;94:1071–1076.
7.
Takenaka A, Murakami G, Soga H, Han SH, Arai Y, Fujisawa M: Anatomical analysis of the neurovascular bundle supplying penile cavernous tissue to ensure a reliable nerve graft after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2004;172:1032–1035.
8.
Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, Tannapfel A, Liatsikos EN: Intrafascial nerve-sparing endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. Urology 2006;67:17–21.
9.
Xylinas E, Ploussard G, Salomon L, Paul A, Gillion N, Laet KD, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Abbou CC, de la Taille A: Intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy with a laparoscopic robot-assisted extraperitoneal approach: early oncological and functional results. J Endourol 2010;24:577–582.
10.
Guillonneau B, El-Fettouh H, Baumert H, Cathelineau X, Doublet JD, Fromont G, Vallancien G: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological evaluation after 1,000 cases a Montsouris Institute. J Urol 2003;169:1261–1266.
11.
Grossfeld GD, Chang JJ, Broering JM, Miller DP, Yu J, Flanders SC, Henning JM, Stier DM, Carroll PR: Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate cancer recurrence and the use of secondary cancer treatment: data from the CaPSURE database. J Urol 2000;163:1171–1177; quiz 1295.
12.
Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, Do M, Schwalenberg T, Winkler M, Dietel A, Liatsikos E: Intrafascial nerve-sparing endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2008;53:931–940.
13.
Potdevin L, Ercolani M, Jeong J, Kim IY: Functional and oncologic outcomes comparing interfascial and intrafascial nerve sparing in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies. J Endourol 2009;23:1479–1484.
14.
Budaus L, Isbarn H, Schlomm T, Heinzer H, Haese A, Steuber T, Salomon G, Huland H, Graefen M: Current technique of open intrafascial nerve-sparing retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2009;56:317–324.
15.
Curto F, Benijts J, Pansadoro A, Barmoshe S, Hoepffner JL, Mugnier C, Piechaud T, Gaston R: Nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: our technique. Eur Urol 2006;49:344–352.
16.
Neill MG, Louie-Johnsun M, Chabert C, Eden C: Does intrafascial dissection during nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compromise cancer control? BJU Int 2009;104:1730–1733.
17.
Stolzenburg JU, Kallidonis P, Do M, Dietel A, Hafner T, Rabenalt R, Sakellaropoulos G, Ganzer R, Paasch U, Horn LC, Liatsikos E: A comparison of outcomes for interfascial and intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Urology 2010;76:743–748.
18.
Walsh PC, Donker PJ: Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol 1982;128:492–497.
19.
Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology 1997;50:854–857.
20.
Gontero P, Kirby RS: Nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy: techniques and clinical considerations. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2005;8:133–139.
21.
Cornu JN, Phe V, Fournier G, Delmas V, Sebe P: Fascia surrounding the prostate: clinical and anatomical basis of the nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Surg Radiol Anat 2010;32:663–667.
22.
Walsh PC: Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique. J Urol 1998;160:2418–2424.
23.
Martinez-Pineiro L: Prostatic fascial anatomy and positive surgical margins in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2007;51:598–600.
24.
Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Palmer KJ, Rocco B, Patel MB, Patel VR: Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a review of current outcomes. BJU Int 2009;104:1428–1435.
25.
Greco F, Wagner S, Hoda MR, Kawan F, Inferrera A, Lupo A, Reichelt O, Jurczok A, Hamza A, Fornara P: Laparoscopic vs. open retropubic intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: surgical and functional outcomes in 300 patients. BJU Int 2010;106:543–547.
26.
Menon M, Hemal AK, Tewari A, Shrivastava A, Bhandari A: The technique of apical dissection of the prostate and urethrovesical anastomosis in robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2004;93:715–719.
27.
Sofer M, Hamilton-Nelson KL, Civantos F, Soloway MS: Positive surgical margins after radical retropubic prostatectomy: the influence of site and number on progression. J Urol 2002;167:2453–2456.
28.
Atug F, Castle EP, Srivastav SK, Burgess SV, Thomas R, Davis R: Positive surgical margins in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: impact of learning curve on oncologic outcomes. Eur Urol 2006;49:866–871.
29.
Yossepowitch O, Bjartell A, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Guillonneau BD, Karakiewicz PI, Montironi R, Montorsi F: Positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy: outlining the problem and its long-term consequences. Eur Urol 2009;55:87–99.
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
2012
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.