Surgical anatomy of the prostate in the era of radical robotic prostatectomy

[Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: risk factors and utilisation of care]

Stress urinary incontinence is a relevant risk of radical prostatectomy (RP), which significantly affects patients' quality of life. The risk of developing stress urinary incontinence depends on pre-, intra- and postoperative factors. In particular, intraoperative factors regarding different surgical techniques are often focused on in order to improve continence rates. If stress urinary incontinence develops after RPE, patients affected should be treated adequately. In this respect, there are indications of healthcare insufficiencies in Germany. On the one hand, these include deficits in the use of incontinence materials. On the other hand, surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence after RPE is insufficient.

Impact of Early Dorsal Venous Complex Ligation on Urinary Continence Recovery after Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Results from a Phase 3 Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Whether early ligation of the dorsal venous complex (DVC) might improve recovery of urinary continence (UC) after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has never been investigated in a prospective randomized study.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether early DVC ligation might affect UC recovery after RARP.

INTERVENTION

DVC ligation (early vs standard).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 312 patients with prostate cancer underwent primary RARP at a tertiary care institution.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was UC recovery at 1 and 4 mo after RARP. UC was defined as 0 pads/1 safety pad per day. All patients completed the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and International Consultation of Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ)-Short Form questionnaires. Secondary outcomes were early (≤4 mo) erectile function recovery, the positive surgical margin (PSM) rate, 30-d Clavien-Dindo complications, and biochemical recurrence rates. Quality of life was assessed using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. The association between treatment arm and UC recovery was also tested using multivariable regression models.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

After surgery, 23 patients withdrew their consent and 29 were lost to follow-up, leaving 261 patients available for per-protocol analyses. Of these, 32 patients (24%) in the experimental group and 37 (29%) in the control group used no pad/one safety pad at 1 mo after RARP, whereas 96 (72%) in the control group versus 83 (65%) in the control group were continent at 4-mo follow-up (both p = 0.3). Median ICIQ and IPSS scores did not differ between the groups at both time points. The results were confirmed on multivariable regression analyses. PSMs were observed for 32 patients (25%) in the experimental group versus 30 (22%) in the control group (p = 0.6). The incidence of postoperative complications (17% experimental vs 13% control) and the 1-yr biochemical recurrence-free survival did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized clinical trial, we did not find evidence that early ligation of the DVC during RARP was associated with better UC recovery after surgery in comparison to the standard technique. Given its safety in terms of surgical margins and complications, this technique may be considered as an option for surgical dissection according to the physician's preference.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Our trial showed that for patients undergoing robot-assisted surgical removal of the prostate, the timing of a specific step to control bleeding from a network of veins draining the prostate did not affect recovery of urinary continence after surgery. The results indicate that earlier control of these veins may be considered as an option according to the surgeon's preference.

Generating comprehensive comparative evidence on various interventions for penile rehabilitation in patients with erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

We aim to present a comprehensive comparison of various treatments in the management of penile recovery after radical prostatectomy (RP) and provide recommendations for future research.

Methods

Literature search of electronic databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, PsycInfo, and Web of Science, and manual retrieval were conducted from inception through March 2020. “Erectile dysfunction” and “prostatectomy” were used as the Mesh terms. The patients, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design (PICOS) approach were used to define study eligibility. Two authors independently selected studies, evaluated the methodological quality, and extracted data using Cochrane Collaboration’s tools. The data analysis was completed by STATA version 14.2.

Results

A total of 24 studies with 3,500 patients were incorporated in the final analysis after screening 6,131 records. Our findings indicated that vacuum constriction devices (VCD) ranked 1st which meant that patients in VCD group had the best effect regarding mean IIEF scores within 3 months after RP, and no significant difference was observed between VCD and VCD with 20 mg/day tadalafil (V20DT) (MD: 5.44; 95% CI: −0.81 to 11.69). VCD and 50 mg/day sildenafil (VC50DS) showed superiority over 50 mg/day sildenafil (50DS) (MD: 3.75; 95% CI: 2.74–4.76) and intraurethral alprostadil 125–250 µg (MD: 3.05; 95% CI: 0.38 to 5.72), respectively. Moreover, V20DT showed significant superiority over the other interventions for ≥6 months mean International Index Erectile of Function (IIEF) scores after RP. Monotherapy appeared to have similar efficacy in terms of mean IIEF scores and proportion of patients return to baseline, and the effect of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5is) did not seem to be affected by the patterns of administration (regular or on demand).

Conclusions

The combination therapy showed certain advantages over monotherapy, and we recommended the combination of VCD and PDE5is to be considered in the clinical management of penile rehabilitation after RP.

Current management strategy of treating patients with erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this study is to present a summary of current evidence concerning the various treatments in the management of penile rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy (RP) and provide recommendations for future research. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from electronic databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science from inception through March 2020 with no limitation to language. Comparable data from each study were combined in a meta-analysis where possible, otherwise data were synthesized narratively. The data analysis was completed by Review Manager version 5.3. A total of 39 RCTs were included in this study. At present, phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5is) remain the first-line treatment for patients with erectile dysfunction (ED) after RP. Compared with the placebo group, patients in regular PDE5is group (mean difference (MD): 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.69-4.44; p < 0.0001) and on demand group (MD: 3.92; 95% CI: 2.95-4.88; p < 0.00001) had a significantly higher mean Erectile Function domain of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-EF) scores within 3 months after RP. As for the proportion of IIEF-EF ≥ 22, patients in regular PDE5is group and on demand PDE5is group had significantly higher proportion than those in placebo group 6 months after RP, and the odds ratios were 1.87 (95% CI: 1.32-2.66; p = 0.0005) and 2.17 (95% CI: 1.20-3.93; p = 0.01), respectively. No significant difference was observed between regular PDE5is group and on demand group regardless of mean IIEF-EF score or the proportion of IIEF-EF ≥ 22. Intracorporeal injection therapy seemed to have similar efficacy to PDE5is. The International Index of Erectile Function-5 items (IIEF-5) scores were significantly higher in vacuum constriction devices group than control group at 6-9 months after RP (MD: 6.70, 95% CI: 2.30-11.10, p = 0.003) with great between-study heterogeneity (p = 0.06, I² = 72%). The other therapeutics including low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy, statin therapy, psychotherapy interventions, and pelvic floor muscle training plus electrical stimulation showed certain improvement on erectile function. We found that the combination therapy showed certain advantages over monotherapy. Currently, PDE5is-based combination therapy remains the mainstream treatment for ED after RP. Intracorporeal injection therapy and vacuum therapy could be served as alternative treatments if PDE5is are ineffective and contraindicated.

Analysis of a practical surgical skills laboratory for nerve sparing radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE

With the rapidly expanding anatomical and technical knowledge surrounding nervesparing radical prostatectomy (NSRP), anatomical and operative textbooks have failed to keep pace with the literature. A surgical skill laboratory (SSL) was designed to educate urology trainees on surgical anatomy and techniques for NSRP. The objective was to assess the validity of a SSL program.

METHODS

A low-fidelity, anatomically accurate prostate model with its appropriate fascial coverings and location of the neurovascular bundle was created. Participants were surveyed prior to a SSL workshop for their knowledge of NSRP focusing on clinical and anatomical considerations. An interactive 2-h tutorial and workshop was then undertaken outlining the clinical and anatomical nuances for NSRP, with participants then practising an intra and inter-fascial NSRP on the model. Participants were resurveyed immediately after the workshop and at 6 months.

RESULTS

Thirty participants completed the NSRP workshop. Significant differences (p < 0.0001) in anatomical and clinical knowledge were noted after the workshop with improvements for both junior and senior trainees. The knowledge was retained at 6 months following the workshop.

CONCLUSIONS

A low-fidelity bench-top model is a feasible and reproducible technique for improving the understanding of periprostatic anatomy and the different surgical approaches for NSRP. The SSL is useful and knowledge gained appears to be retained by workshop participants. SSL workshops are a valid hands-on approach to teaching surgical skills and should remain an integral part of urology training.

Does penile rehabilitation have a role in the treatment of erectile dysfunction following radical prostatectomy?

In men undergoing radical treatment for prostate cancer, erectile function is one of the most important health-related quality-of-life outcomes influencing patient choice in treatment. Penile rehabilitation has emerged as a therapeutic measure to prevent erectile dysfunction and expedite return of erectile function after radical prostatectomy. Penile rehabilitation involves a program designed to increase the likelihood of return to baseline-level erectile function, as opposed to treatment, which implies the therapeutic treatment of symptoms, a key component of post–radical prostatectomy management. Several pathological theories form the basis for rehabilitation, and a plethora of treatments are currently in widespread use. However, whilst there is some evidence supporting the concept of penile rehabilitation from animal studies, randomised controlled trials are contradictory in outcomes. Similarly, urological guidelines are conflicted in terms of recommendations. Furthermore, it is clear that in spite of the lack of evidence for the role of penile rehabilitation, many urologists continue to employ some form of rehabilitation in their patients after radical prostatectomy. This is a significant burden to health resources in public-funded health economies, and no effective cost-benefit analysis has been undertaken to support this practice. Thus, further research is warranted to provide both scientific and clinical evidence for this contemporary practice and the development of preventative strategies in treating erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy.

Oncologic Outcome of Radical Prostatectomy as Monotherapy for Men with High-risk Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to review our experience with radical prostatectomy (RP) as monotherapy for men with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study included 382 consecutive patients who were diagnosed with high-risk PCa according to the D'Amico definition and subsequently underwent RP without neoadjuvant therapy. Biochemical recurrence (BR) was defined as a serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level ≥ 0.2 ng/ml on two consecutive measurements, and none of the patients received any adjuvant therapies until their serum PSA levels reached ≥ 0.4 ng/ml.

RESULTS

The median preoperative serum PSA level in these 382 patients was 15.9 ng/ml. Pathological stages ≥ pT2c and Gleason scores ≥ 8 were observed in 288 and 194 patients, respectively. During the observation period (median, 48.0 months), BR occurred in 134 patients, and the 5-year BR-free survival rate was 60.1%; however, no patient died of cancer progression. Multivariate analysis identified capsular invasion, seminal vesicle invasion, and surgical margin status as independent predictors of BR.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparatively favorable cancer control could be achieved using RP as monotherapy for men with high-risk PCa; however, RP alone may be insufficient for patients with capsular invasion, seminal vesicle invasion, and/or surgical margin positivity.

A Critical Analysis of the Current Knowledge of Surgical Anatomy of the Prostate Related to Optimisation of Cancer Control and Preservation of Continence and Erection in Candidates for Radical Prostatectomy: An Update

CONTEXT

In 2010, we published a review summarising the available literature on surgical anatomy of the prostate and adjacent structures involved in cancer control and the functional outcome of prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update based on new literature to help the surgeon improve oncologic and surgical outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We searched the PubMed database using the keywords radical prostatectomy, anatomy, neurovascular bundle, nerve, fascia, pelvis, sphincter, urethra, urinary continence, and erectile function. Relevant articles and textbook chapters published since the last review were critically reviewed, analysed, and summarised. Moreover, we integrated aspects that were not addressed in the last review into this update.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We found new evidence for several topics. Up to 40% of the cross-sectional surface area of the urethral sphincter tissue is laterally overlapped by the dorsal vascular complex and might be injured during en bloc ligation. Denonvilliers fascia is fused with the base of the prostate in a horizontal fashion dorsally/caudally of the seminal vesicles, requiring sharp detachment when preserved. During extended pelvic lymph node dissection, the erectile nerves are at risk in the presacral and internal iliac area. Dissection planes for nerve sparing can be graded according to the amount of tissue left on the prostate as a safety margin against positive surgical margins. Vascular structures can serve as landmarks. The urethral sphincter and its length after RP are influenced by the shape of the apex. Taking this shape into account allows preservation of additional sphincter length with improved postoperative continence.

CONCLUSIONS

This update provides additional, detailed information about the surgical anatomy of the prostate and adjacent tissues involved in RP. This anatomy remains complex and widely variable. These details facilitate surgical orientation and dissection during RP and ideally should translate into improved outcomes.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Based on recent anatomic findings regarding the prostate and its surrounding tissue, the urologist can individualise the dissection during RP according to cancer and patient characteristics to improve oncologic and functional results at the same time.