Interpositional Nerve Grafting of the Prostatic Plexus after Radical Prostatectomy

Is there any difference in urinary continence between bilateral and unilateral nerve sparing during radical prostatectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT

In men with prostate cancer, urinary incontinence is one of the most common long-term side effects of radical prostatectomy (RP). The recovery of urinary continence in patients is positively influenced by preserving the integrity of the neurovascular bundles (NVBs). However, it is still unclear if bilateral nerve sparing (BNS) is superior to unilateral nerve sparing (UNS) in terms of post-RP urinary continence. The aim of this study is to systematically compare the differences in post-RP urinary continence outcomes between BNS and UNS.

METHODS

The electronic databases of PubMed and Web of Science were comprehensively searched. The search period was up to May 31, 2023. English language articles comparing urinary continence outcomes of patients undergoing BNS and UNS radical prostatectomy were included. Meta-analyses were performed to calculate pooled relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% confidence intervals for urinary continence in BNS and UNS groups at selected follow-up intervals using a random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses were performed in prospective studies and robotic-assisted RP studies.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis was conducted using data from 26,961 participants in fifty-seven studies. A meta-analysis demonstrated that BNS improved the urinary continence rate compared to UNS at all selected follow-up points. RRs were 1.36 (1.14-1.63; p = 0.0007) at ≤ 1.5 months (mo), 1.28 (1.08-1.51; p = 0.005) at 3-4 mo, 1.12 (1.03-1.22; p = 0.01) at 6 mo, 1.08 (1.05-1.12; p < 0.00001) at 12 mo, and 1.07 (1.00-1.13; p = 0.03) at ≥ 24 mo, respectively. With the extension of the follow-up time, RRs decreased from 1.36 to 1.07, showing a gradual downward trend. Pooled estimates were largely heterogeneous. Similar findings were obtained through sensitivity analyses of prospective studies and robotic-assisted RP studies.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this meta-analysis demonstrate that BNS yields superior outcomes in terms of urinary continence compared to UNS, with these advantages being sustained for a minimum duration of 24 months. It may be due to the real effect of saving the nerves involved. Future high-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Regenerative technology to restore and preserve erectile function in men following prostate cancer treatment: evidence for penile rehabilitation in the context of prostate cancer survivorship

Introduction

Erectile dysfunction (ED) following prostate cancer treatment is not uncommon and penile rehabilitation is considered the standard of care in prostate cancer survivorship (PCS), where both patient and his partner desire to maintain and/or recover pre-treatment erectile function (EF). There is a clinical interest in the role of regenerative therapy to restore EF, since existing ED treatments do not always achieve adequate results.

Aim

To review regenerative therapies for the treatment of ED in the context of PCS.

Materials and Methods

A review of the existing PubMed literature on low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy (LIESWT), stem cell therapy (SCT), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), gene therapy, and nerve graft/neurorrhaphy in the treatment of ED and penile rehabilitation, was undertaken.

Results

IESWT promotes neovascularization and neuroprotection in men with ED. While several systematic reviews and meta-analyses showed positive benefits, there is limited published clinical data in men following radical prostatectomy. Cellular-based technology such as SCT and PRP promotes cellular proliferation and the secretion of various growth factors to repair damaged tissues, especially in preclinical studies. However, longer-term clinical outcomes and concerns regarding bioethical and regulatory frameworks need to be addressed. Data on gene therapy in post-prostatectomy ED men are lacking; further clinical studies are required to investigate the optimal use of growth factors and the safest vector delivery system. Conceptually interpositional cavernous nerve grafting and penile re-innervation technique using a somatic-to-autonomic neurorrhaphy are attractive, but issues relating to surgical technique and potential for neural 'regeneration' are questionable.

Conclusion

In contrast to the existing treatment regime, regenerative ED technology aspires to promote endothelial revascularization and neuro-regeneration. Nevertheless, there remain considerable issues related to these regenerative technologies and techniques, with limited data on longer-term efficacy and safety records. Further research is necessary to define the role of these alternative therapies in the treatment of ED in the context of penile rehabilitation and PCS.