Significance of electrostimulation in detecting neurovascular bundle during radical prostatectomy

Current rehabilitation strategy: clinical evidence for erection recovery after radical prostatectomy

Erectile function (EF) recovery remains a prominent functional outcome underachievement of radical prostatectomy (RP), despite the success of anatomic “nerve-sparing” technique and its recent refinements in the modern surgical era. Delayed (for as much as a few years) or incomplete (partial and unusable) EF recovery commonly occurs in many men still today undergoing this surgery. “Penile rehabilitation”, alternatively termed “EF rehabilitation”, originated formally as a therapeutic practice approximately 15 years ago for addressing post-RP erectile dysfunction (ED) beyond conventional ED management. Although the premise of this therapy is conceptually sound and generally accepted, in reference to the implementation of strategies for promoting EF recovery to a naturally functional level in the absence of erectile aids (distinct from the premise of conventional ED management), the optimal manner and efficacy of currently suggested therapeutic strategies are far less established. Such strategies include regimens of standard ED-specific therapies (e.g., oral, intracavernosal, and intraurethral pharmacotherapies; vacuum erection device therapy) and courses of innovative interventions (e.g., statins, erythropoietin, angiotensin receptor blockers). An endeavor in evolution, erection rehabilitation may ideally comprise an integrative program of sexual health management incorporating counseling, coaching, guidance toward general health optimization and application of demonstrably effective “rehabilitative” interventions. Ongoing intensive discovery and rigorous investigation are required to establish efficacy of therapeutic prospects that fulfill the intent of post-RP erection rehabilitation.

Classification of the distribution of cavernous nerve fibers around the prostate by intraoperative electrical stimulation during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

We investigated the distribution of cavernous nerve (CN) fibers around the prostate by electrical nerve stimulation during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy to classify the distribution of the CN fibers. Electrical stimulation was performed on 30 consecutive patients with localized prostate cancer; middle of the neurovascular bundle (NVB, point A), base of the NVB (point B), the rectal wall 1 cm posterolateral to the NVB (point C) and the lateral aspect of the prostate (point D). We measured the intraurethral pressure at the midportion to detect the changes in intracavernosal pressure. The mean maximum changes were 10.5 ± 7.9, 11.6 ± 8.8, 9.6 ± 7.4 and 6.7 ± 7.0 cm H(2)O at points A, B, C and D, respectively. The patterns of CN fiber distribution were divided into four groups: type 1 (23%), the bundle corresponding to the NVB; type 2 (7%), the bundle from the rectal wall to the prostate; type 3 (27%), the plate including NVB and posterolateral to NVB; and type 4 (43%), the plate between the rectal wall posterolateral to the NVB and the lateral aspect of the prostate. Distribution of the CNs in a bundle-like formation was considered to account for 30%, whereas a plate-like formation accounted for 70%. Understanding these four patterns of CN fiber distribution should facilitate accurate CN-sparing radical prostatectomy.