A matched-pair comparison between bilateral intrafascial and interfascial nerve-sparing techniques in extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Oncological safety of intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy compared with conventional process: a pooled review and meta-regression analysis based on available studies

Background

Intrafascial prostatectomy was a modified technique from the conventional nerve-sparing surgery in order to improve patients’ post-surgical continence and erectile function; however, ongoing controversy exists regarding the oncological safety of this technique. In this study we aimed to provide a critical and pooled analysis based on published literatures regarding the oncological outcomes after intrafascial nerve-sparing prostatectomy.

Methods

Database searches were performed for published articles till June 2018 on PubMed. Three reviewers screened fulfilled papers and extracted data independently. Main outcome was the positive surgical margins (PSMs) rates stratified by pathological stages. We performed both one-arm and comparative meta-analysis to evaluate the oncological safety of intrafascial technique. Moreover, we built meta-regression models to assess the confounding factors.

Results

We retrieved a total of 117 records after electronic search, of which 21 studies were finally included in this review. There were 15 controlled studies and 6 surgical series. Our one-arm meta-analysis demonstrated that the total PSM rates after intrafascial techniques ranging from 2.2 to 35%, with a pooled rate of 14.5% on average (480 of 3151 patients, 95% confidence interval[CI]: 11.2–17.5%). Meta-regression model showed that patients’ age, pT2 cancer percentage and Selection Score of Oncological Safety (SSOS) were significantly associated with total PSM rate; moreover, each 1 point of SSOS could decrease the total PSM rate by 1.3% on average. Comparative meta-analysis demonstrated that there was no significant difference between intra- and inter-fascial group regarding PSM rates.

Conclusions

With stringent case selection and when performed by experienced surgeons, intrafascial prostatectomy could offer an acceptable or, at least, equivalent PSM rate compared with the conventional interfascial approach. Preoperative SSOS more than 7 points could be considered as an indication of intrafascial radical prostatectomy.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12894-019-0476-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy improves patients' postoperative continence recovery and erectile function: A pooled analysis based on available literatures

BACKGROUND

Intrafascial nerve-sparing prostatectomy has been currently applied based on the updated anatomic understanding of periprostatic cavernous nerves, in order to provide patients better postoperative recovery of continence and potency. The aim of our study is to perform a pooled analysis of available literatures regarding the functional outcomes following intrafascial nerve-sparing technique.

METHODS

The authors performed database searches of articles published till October 2017 on PubMed using following keywords across the "title" and "abstract" field of the records: intrafascial, veil, curtain dissection, high anterior release, incremental nerve sparing, and radical prostatectomy. Fulfilled papers were screened and data were extracted independently by 3 reviewers. Main outcome was the postoperative continence and potency rate stratified by follow-up durations. Both 1-arm and comparative meta-analyses were performed and meta-regression models were conducted to evaluate the confounding factors.

RESULTS

Using the electronic search strategy, a total of 71 records were retrieved and 20 studies were finally included, of which 6 were surgical series and 14 were controlled studies. Our 1-arm meta-analysis summarized the pooled continence rates after intrafascial prostatectomy were 59.4%, 76.2%, 89.9%, and 92.2% at postoperative follow-up of 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Regardless of the variance in potency definition, the pooled potency rates after intrafascial prostatectomy were 42.2%, 54.2%, and 72.2% at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Comparative analysis showed that the intrafascial group offered better continence rates at 1, 3, and 6 months with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.38 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.73-3.26), 1.82 (95% CI: 1.18-2.82), and 2.19 (95% CI: 1.43-3.34) as compared with the interfascial group. Moreover, potency rate in the intrafascial group was higher at 12 months than in the interfascial group, with an OR of 2.44 (95% CI: 1.35-4.42).

CONCLUSION

Based on the limited evidence, our study demonstrated that intrafascial nerve-sparing prostatectomy could provide patients with earlier recovery of continence and better erectile function compared with conventional interfascial approach, but physiological mechanisms about this technique still need further study.

Comparison of intrafascial and non-intrafascial radical prostatectomy for low risk localized prostate cancer

In this meta-analysis study, we compared the oncological and functional outcomes of intrafascial radical prostatectomy (IFRP) with non-intrafascial radical prostatectomy (NIFRP) in the treatment of patients with low risk localized prostate cancer (PCa). Relevant articles were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Ovid, and the ISI Web of Knowledge databases. A total of 2096 patients were included from 7 eligible studies. Results of the pooled data showed that the oncological outcomes including gleason score, positive surgical margin and biochemical free survival rates were similar between the two groups. IFRP was superior to NIFRP with lower postoperative complication rates (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38, 0.85, p = 0.006), higher continence rates at 3 months post-operation (RR: 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04, 1.26; p = 0.006), and higher potency rates at 6 months (RR: 1.53; 95% CI, 1.07, 2.18; p = 0.02) and 12 months post-operation (RR: 1.38; 95% CI, 1.11, 1.73; p = 0.005). Additionally, there was a tendency towards higher potency rate in patients ≤65 years old compared with patients >65 years old after IFRP. Overall, these findings suggest that IFRP in young patients with low risk localized PCa had less postoperative complications, shortened time to return to continence and improved potency rate without compromising complete tumor control.

Intrafascial versus interfascial nerve sparing in radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The present study aimed to systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the intrafascial and interfascial nerve sparing (ITR-NS and ITE-NS) radical prostatectomy. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for eligible studies. Meta-analysis with random-effects model was performed. Six comparative trials were selected and embraced in this research, including one randomized controlled trial, three prospective comparative trials, and two retrospective comparative trials. With regard to perioperative parameters, no significant association of operative time, blood loss, transfusion rates, duration of catheterization, and hospital stay existed between ITR-NS and ITE-NS. With respect to the functional results, ITR-NS had advantages in terms of both continence and potency recovery compared with ITE-NS. In reference to the oncologic results, the ITR-NS showed lower overall positive surgical margin (PSM) compared with ITE-NS but pT2 PSM and biochemical recurrence free rates were similar to the two surgical types. This study demonstrates that ITR-NS has better continence at 6 mo and 36 mo and better potency recovery at 6 mo and 12 mo postoperatively, regardless of the surgical technique. The cancer control of ITR-NS was also better than that of ITE-NS. This may be explained by the fact that patients in ITE-NS group present higher risk cancer than patients in ITR-NS group.