The bladder neck preservation in robot assisted radical prostatectomy: Surgical and pathological outcome
https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2023.12138
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Introduction: The post-prostatectomy incontinence is influenced by multiple elements, anatomic components and biological factors. The bladder neck preservation, more accurate during robot assisted radical prostatectomy, works on two anatomic components responsible for post-prostatectomy continence. The bladder neck preservation spares the internal sphincter, which is responsible for passive continence, and results in earlier return to continence and lower rates of post-prostatectomy incontinence. Moreover, this surgical technique spares the zone of urothelium coaptation and provides primary resistance to the urine to maintain postprostatectomy continence. The potential risk of bladder neck positive surgical margins (PSM) may prevent the usage of the bladder neck preservation. Aim: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the surgical and pathological outcome in prostate cancer patients underwent robot assisted radical prostatectomy with bladder neck preservation. Materials and methods: Prospectively, we have collected demographic, clinical, surgical and pathological data of prostate cancer patients underwent robot assisted radical prostatectomy with bladder neck preservation, from January 2014 to December 2016, in Urological Clinic of the University of Padua. Moreover, it was valued the presence of alterations or continuous solutions of specimen external capsule, attributable to the surgical technique of bladder neck preservation, by microscopic and macroscopic pathological analysis. Results: According to D'Amico risk classification, 40 patients (45.4%) had a low risk neoplasia, 35 patients (39.8%) had an intermediate risk neoplasia, 13 patients (14.8%) had an high risk neoplasia. The median prostatic volume, valued on specimen, was 30.84 cc (21.5-44.75 cc). The median prostatic weight, valued on specimen, was 51 gr (36-67 gr). The pathological stage of disease was pT2a in 11 cases (12.5%), pT2b in 37 cases (42.1%), pT3a in 28 cases (31.8%), pT3b in 12 cases (13.6%). The pathological stage of lymph node involvement was pNx in 17 cases (19.3%), pN0 in 66 cases (75%), pN1 in 5 cases (5.7%). The prostate cancers diagnosed had a Gleason score at specimen of 6 in 10 cases (10.4%), 7 (3+4) in 30 cases (34.1%), 7 (4+3) in 20 cases (22.7%), 8 in 19 cases (21.6%) and 9 in 9 cases (10.2%). The prostatic base was involved by neoplasia in 14 patients (15.9%); of these, 5 patients (35.7%) had bladder neck PSM. The patients with bladder neck PSM had: a pathological stage of disease as pT3a in 2 cases (40%) and pT3b in 3 cases (60%); a pathological stage of lymph node involvement as pN0 in 2 cases (40%) and pN1 in 3 cases (60%); a Gleason score at specimen of 8 in 3 cases (60%) and 9 in 2 cases (40%); multiple PSM. Nobody had alterations or continuous solutions of specimen external capsule, attributable to surgical technique of bladder neck preservation. Conclusions: The bladder neck preservation, during robot assisted radical prostatectomy, is a safe oncological procedure resulting in a good functional outcome, about post-prostatectomy continence, working on two anatomic components responsible for post-prostatectomy continence. The bladder neck PSM are linked to neoplasia with adverse pathological features, rather than the bladder neck preservation.
Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012; 62:405-17 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.045
Heesakkers J, Farag F, Bauer RM, et al. Pathophysiology and Contributing Factors in Postprostatectomy Incontinence: A Review. Eur Urol. 2017; 71:936-944. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.09.031
Steiner MS. The puboprostatic ligament and the male urethral suspensory mechanism: an anatomic study. Urology. 1994; 44:530-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(94)80052-9
Tuygun C, Imamoglu A, Keyik B, et al. Significance of fibrosis around and/or at external urinary sphincter on pelvic magnetic resonance imaging in patients with postprostatectomy incontinence. Urology. 2006; 68:1308-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.08.1080
Catarin MV, Manzano GM, Nóbrega JA, et al. The role of membranous urethral afferent autonomic innervation in the continence mechanism after nerve sparing radical prostatectomy: a clinical and prospective study. J Urol. 2008; 180:2527-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.08.020
Ozdemir MB, Eskicorapci SY, Baydar DE, et al. A cadaveric histological investigation of the prostate with three-dimensional reconstruction for better results in continence and erectile function after radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2007; 10:77-81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.pcan.4500917
Kaye DR, Hyndman ME, Segal RL, et al. Urinary outcomes are significantly affected by nerve sparing quality during radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2013; 82:1348-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.06.067
Burkhard FC, Kessler TM, Fleischmann A, et al. Nerve sparing open radical retropubic prostatectomy--does it have an impact on urinary continence? J Urol. 2006; 176:189-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00574-X
Matsushita K, Kent MT, Vickers AJ, et al. Preoperative predictive model of recovery of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2015; 116:577-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13087
Song C, Lee J, Hong JH, et al. Urodynamic interpretation of
changing bladder function and voiding pattern after radical prostatectomy: a long-term follow-up. BJU Int. 2010; 106:681-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.09189.x
Wolin KY, Luly J, Sutcliffe S, et al. Risk of urinary incontinence following prostatectomy: the role of physical activity and obesity. J Urol. 2010; 183:629-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.09.082
Wei JT, Dunn RL, Marcovich R, et al. Prospective assessment of patient reported urinary continence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2000; 164:744-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00005392-200009010-00029
Elder JS, Gibbons RP, Correa RJ Jr, Brannen GE. Morbidity of radical perineal prostatectomy following transurethral resection of the prostate. J Urol. 1984; 132:55-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)49462-6
Konety BR1, Sadetsky N, Carroll PR; CaPSURE Investigators. Recovery of urinary continence following radical prostatectomy: the impact of prostate volume--analysis of data from the CaPSURE Database. J Urol. 2007; 177:1423-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.11.089
Paparel P, Akin O, Sandhu JS, et al. Recovery of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy: association with urethral length and urethral fibrosis measured by preoperative and postoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Urol. 2009; 55:629-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.08.057
Koraitim MM. The male urethral sphincter complex revisited: an anatomical concept and its physiological correlate. J Urol. 2008; 179:1683-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.010
Sacco E, Prayer-Galetti T, Pinto F, et al. Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: incidence by definition, risk factors and temporal trend in a large series with a long-term follow-up. BJU Int. 2006; 97:1234-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06185.x
De Ridder D, Rehder P. The AdVance male sling: anatomic features in relation to mode of action. Eur Urol Suppl 2011; 10:383-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eursup.2011.04.001
Rosen RC, Cappelleri JC, Smith MD, et al. Development and evaluation of an abridged, 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) as a diagnostic tool for erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res. 1999; 11:319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3900472
Barry MJ, Fowler FJ Jr, O'Leary MP, et al. The American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The Measurement Committee of the American Urological Association. J Urol. 1992; 148:1549. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)36966-5
Sobin LH, Compton CC. TNM seventh edition: what's new,
what's changed: communication from the International Union Against Cancer and the American Joint Committee on Cancer. Cancer. 2010; 116:5336. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25537
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016; 40:244. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al, Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA1998; 280:969. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.11.969
Ficarra V, Novara G, Secco S, et al. Predictors of positive surgical margins after laparoscopic robot assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009; 182:2682-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.037
Stolzenburg JU, Kallidonis P, Hicks J, et al. Effect of bladder neck preservation during endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy on urinary continence. Urol Int. 2010; 85:135-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000314842
Soljanik I, Bauer RM, Becker AJ, et al. Is a wider angle of the membranous urethra associated with incontinence after radical prostatectomy? World J Urol. 2014; 32:1375-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1241-5
Selli C, De Antoni P, Moro U, et al. Role of bladder neck preservation in urinary continence following radical retropubic prostatectomy. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2004; 38:32-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00365590310017280
Srougi M, Nesrallah LJ, Kauffmann JR, et al. Urinary continence and pathological outcome after bladder neck preservation during radical retropubic prostatectomy: a randomized prospective trial. J Urol. 2001; 165:815-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)66534-2
Zakri RH, Vedanayagam M, John B, et al. Bladder neck sparing (BNS) robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP): Does it improve continence? Eur Urol. Suppl. 2016; 15:eV20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1569-9056(16)61188-0
Ma X, Tang K, Yang C, et al. Bladder neck preservation improves time to continence after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2016; 7:67463-67475. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.11997
Nyarangi-Dix JN, Radtke JP, Hadaschik B, et al. Impact of complete bladder neck preservation on urinary continence, quality of life and surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a randomized, controlled, single blind trial. J Urol. 2013; 189:891-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.082
Friedlander DF, Alemozaffar M, Hevelone ND, et al. Stepwise description and outcomes of bladder neck sparing during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2012; 188:1754-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.07.045
Copyright (c) 2023 the Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.
Downloads
Citations
