Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Current status of various neurovascular bundle-sparing techniques in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nerve-sparing procedures during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) have demonstrated improved postoperative functional outcomes. This article provides an overview of clinically applied prostatic neuro-anatomy, various techniques of nerve sparing (NS), and recent innovations in NS and potency outcomes of NS RARP. We retrieved and reviewed all listed publications within PubMed using keywords: nerve sparing, robotic radical prostatectomy, prostate cancer, outcomes, pelvic neuroanatomy and potency. Studies reporting potency outcomes of NS RARP (comparative and non-comparative) were analysed using the Delphi method with an expert panel of urological robotic surgeons. Herein, we outline the published techniques of NS during RARP. Potency and continence outcomes of individual series are discussed in light of the evidence provided by case series and published trials. The potency outcomes of various comparative and non-comparative series of NS RARP have also been mentioned. There are numerous NS techniques reported for RARP. Each method is complimented with benefits and constrained by idiosyncratic caveats, and thus, careful patient selection, a wise intraoperative clinical judgment and tailored approach for each patient is required, when decision for nerve sparing is made. Further large prospective multi-institutional randomized controlled trials are required to evaluate potency and continence outcomes of these techniques, using a rigid standard patient selection criteria and definition of potency are warranted in the new era of functional outcome-driven research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Minino AM, Smith BL (2001) Deaths: preliminary data for 2000. Natl Vital Stat Rep 49:1–40

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Crawford ED (2003) Epidemiology of prostate cancer. Urology 62:3–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jani AB, Johnstone PA, Liauw SL, Master VA, Brawley OW (2008) Age and grade trends in prostate cancer (1974–2003): a surveillance, epidemiology, and end results registry analysis. Am J Clin Oncol 31:375–378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Edwards BK, Noone AM, Mariotto AB et al (2014) Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2010, featuring prevalence of comorbidity and impact on survival among persons with lung, colorectal, breast, or prostate cancer. Cancer 120(9):1290–1314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ficarra V, Cavalleri S, Novara G, Aragona M, Artibani W (2007) Evidence from robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review. Eur Urol 51:45–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ficarra V, Borghesi M, Suardi N et al (2013) Long-term evaluation of survival, continence and potency (SCP) outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). BJU Int 112(3):338–345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A, Graefen M, Guazzoni G, Guillonneau B, Menon M, Montorsi F, Patel V, Rassweiler J, Van Poppel H (2009) Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 55:1037–1063

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Coelho RF, Rocco B, Patel MB (2010) Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a critical review of outcomes reported by high-volume centers. J Endourol 24(12):2003–2015

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Park B, Kim W, Jeong BC et al (2013) Comparison of oncological and functional outcomes of pure versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy performed by a single surgeon Scand. J Urol 47(1):10–18

    Google Scholar 

  10. Willis DL, Gonzalgo ML, Brotzman M et al (2012) Comparison of outcomes between pure laparoscopic vs robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a study of comparative effectiveness based upon validated quality of life outcomes. BJU Int 109(6):898–905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Asimakopoulos AD, Miano R, Di Lorenzo N et al (2013) Laparoscopic versus robot-assisted bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy comparison of pentafecta rates for a single surgeon. Surg Endosc 27(11):4297–4304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Berge V, Berg RE, Hoff JR et al (2013) A prospective study of transition from laparoscopic to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: quality of life outcomes after 36-month follow-up. Urology 81(4):781–786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Porpiglia F, Morra I, Lucci Chiarissi M et al (2013) Randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 63(4):606–614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Asimakopoulos AD, Pereira Fraga CT, Annino F et al (2011) Randomized comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med 8(5):1503–1512

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62(3):418–430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ko YH, Coelho RF, Sivaraman A et al (2013) Retrograde versus antegrade nerve sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: which is better for achieving early functional recovery? Eur Urol 63(1):169–177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Alemozaffar M, Duclos A, Hevelone ND et al (2012) Technical refinement and learning curve for attenuating neurapraxia during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy to improve sexual function. Eur Urol 61(6):1222–1228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ficarra V, Sooriakumaran P, Novara G et al (2012) Systematic review of methods for reporting combined outcomes after radical prostatectomy and proposal of a novel system: the survival, continence, and potency (SCP) classification. Eur Urol 61(3):541–548

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kowalczyk KJ, Huang AC, Hevelone ND et al (2011) Stepwise approach for nerve sparing without countertraction during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: technique and outcomes. Eur Urol 60(3):536–547

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Patel VR, Sivaraman A, Coelho RF et al (2011) Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 59(5):702–707

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Patel VR, Coelho RF, Chauhan S et al (2010) Continence, potency and oncological outcomes after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: early trifecta results of a high-volume surgeon. BJU Int 106(5):696–702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Potdevin L, Ercolani M, Jeong J et al (2009) Functional and oncologic outcomes comparing interfascial and intrafascial nerve sparing in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies. J Endourol 23(9):1479–1484

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Shikanov S, Woo J, Al-Ahmadie H et al (2009) Extrafascial versus interfascial nerve-sparing technique for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: comparison of functional outcomes and positive surgical margins characteristics. Urology 74(3):611–616

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Orvieto MA, Coelho RF, Chauhan S et al (2010) Erectile dysfunction after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 10(5):747–754

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Finley DS, Osann K, Skarecky D, Ahlering TE (2009) Hypothermic nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: rationale, feasibility, and effect on early continence. Urology 73(4):691–696

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Seddon HJ (1948) A review of work on peripheral nerve injuries in Great Britain during World War II. J Nerv Ment Dis 108:160–168

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Takenaka A, Leung RA, Fujisawa M, Tewari AK (2006) Anatomy of autonomic nerve component in the male pelvis: the new concept from a perspective for robotic nerve sparing radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 24(2):136–143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Srivastava A, Chopra S, Pham A (2013) Effect of a risk-stratified grade of nerve-sparing technique on early return of continence after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 63(3):438–444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ludovico GM, Dachille G, Pagliarulo G et al (2013) Bilateral nerve sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy is associated with faster continence recovery but not with erectile function recovery compared with retropubic open prostatectomy: the need for accurate selection of patients. Oncol Rep 29(6):2445–2450

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Walsh PC, Donker PJ (1982) Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol 128:492–497

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Eckhard C (1863) Untersuchungen uber die Erection des beim Hunde. Anat Physiol 3:123–166

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lepor H, Gregerman M, Crosby R, Mostofi FK, Walsh PC (1985) Precise localization of the autonomic nerves from the pelvic plexus to the corpora cavernosa : a detailed anatomical study of the adult male pelvis. J Urol 133(2):207–212

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Quinlan DM, Epstein JI, Carter BS, Walsh PC (1991) Sexual function following radical prostatectomy: influence of preservation of neurovascular bundles. J Urol 145(5):998–1002

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Costello AJ, Brooks M, Cole OJ (2004) Anatomical studies of the neurovascular bundles and cavernosal nerves. BJU Int 94(7):1071–1076

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tewari A, Takenaka A, Mtui E et al (2006) The proximal neurovascular plate and the tri-zonal neural architecture around the prostate gland: importance in athermal robotic technique of nerve sparing prostatectomy. BJU Int 98(2):314–323

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Martinez-Pineiro L, Cansino JR, Sanchez C et al (2006) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Differences between interfascial and intrafascial techniques. Eur Urol 5(suppl):331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Stolzenburg JU, Schwalenberg T, Horn LC et al (2007) Anatomical landmarks of radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 51(3):629–639

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kiyoshima K, Yokomizo A, Yoshida T et al (2004) Anatomical features of peri-prostatic tissue and its surroundings:a histological analysis of 79 radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens. Jpn J Clin Oncol 34(8):463–468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Martinez-Salamanca JI, Ramanathan R, Rao S (2008) Second Prize: pelvic neuroanatomy and innovative approaches to minimize nerve damage and maximize cancer control in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 22(6):1137–1146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Carter S, Le JD, Hu JC (2013) Anatomic and technical considerations for optimizing recovery of sexual function during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Curr Opin Urol 23(1):88–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Chauhan S, Coelho RF, Rocco B et al (2010) Techniques of nerve sparing and potency outcomes following robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Int Braz J Urol 36:259–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Aherling TE, Eichel L, Chou D et al (2005) Feasibility study for robotic radical prostatectomy cautery free neurovascular bundle preservation. Urology 65(5):994–997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Skarecky D et al (2008) Evaluation of long-term thermal injury using cautery during nerve sparing robotic prostatectomy. Urology 72(6):1371–1374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Gill IS, Ukimura O (2007) Thermal energy-free laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: one-year potency outcomes. Urology 70(2):309–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Schatloff O, Chauhan S, Sivaraman A et al (2012) Anatomic grading of nerve sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 61(4):796–802

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Tewari AK, Srivastava A, Huang MW (2011) Anatomical grades of nerve sparing: a risk-stratified approach to neural-hammock sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). BJU Int 108(6 Pt 2):984–992

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Tewari AK, Ali A, Metgud S et al (2013) Functional outcomes following robotic prostatectomy using athermal, traction free risk-stratified grades of nerve sparing. World J Urol 31(3):471–480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Schatloff O, Chauhan S, Kameh D et al (2012) Cavernosal nerve preservation during robot assisted radical prostatectomy is a graded rather than all or none phenomenon :objective demonstration by assessment of residual nerve tissue on surgical specimens. Urology 79(3):596–600

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Kaul S, Savera A, Badani K et al (2006) Functional outcomes and oncological efficacy of Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy with Veil of Aphrodite nerve-sparing: an analysis of 154 consecutive patients. BJU Int 97(3):467–472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S et al (2007) Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy:contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol 51:648–657

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Bhandari M et al (2009) Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy:technical modifications in 2009. Eur Urol 56:89–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Ghani KR, Trinh QD, Menon M (2012) Vattikuti Institute Prostatectomy—technique in 2012. J Endourol 26(12):1558–1565

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Chien GW, Mikhail AA, Orvieto MA et al (2005) Modified clipless antegrade nerve preservation in robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with validated sexual function evaluation. Urology 66(2):419–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Patel VR, Schatloff O, Chauhan C et al (2012) The role of the prostatic vasculature as a landmark for nerve sparing during robot assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 61:571–576

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Cheetham PJ, Truesdale MD, Lee DJ (2010) Use of a flexible carbon dioxide laser fiber for precise dissection of the neurovascular bundle during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Endourol 24(7):1091–1096

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Schlomm T, Tennstedt P, Huxhold C et al (2012) Neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) increases nerve-sparing frequency and reduces positive surgical margins in open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience after 11, 069 consecutive patients. Eur Urol 62(2):333–340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Gianduzzo TR, Colombo JR Jr, Haber GP (2009) KTP laser nerve sparing radical prostatectomy: comparison of ultrasonic and cold scissor dissection on cavernous nerve function. J Urol 181(6):2760–2766

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Badani KK, Shapiro EY, Berg WT et al (2013) A pilot study of laparoscopic doppler ultrasound probe to map arterial vascular flow within the neurovascular bundle during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer 2013:810715

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Ukimura O, Ahlering TE, Gill IS (2008) Transrectal ultrasound-guided, energy-free, nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 22(9):1993–1995

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Joung JY, Ha YS, Singer EA et al (2013) Use of a hyaluronic acid-carboxymethylcellulose adhesion barrier on the neurovascular bundle and prostatic bed to facilitate earlier recovery of erectile function after robot-assisted prostatectomy: an initial experience. J Endourol 27(10):1230–1235

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Fairbairn NG, Randolph MA (2014) Redmond RW The clinical applications of human amnion in plastic surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 67(5):662–675

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Patel VR, Samavedi S, Bates AS et al (2015) Dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane allograft nerve wrap around the prostatic neurovascular bundle accelerates early return to continence and potency following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: propensity score-matched analysis. Eur Urol. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.012 (epub ahead of print)

    Google Scholar 

  63. Kumar A, Samavedi S, Bates A (2015) Impact of dehydrated human amniotic membrane allograft (AmnioFix®) on continence and potency following robot assisted radical prostatectomy. J Videourol (accepted for publication)

  64. Kumar A, Samavedi S, Bates A (2015) Using indocyanine green and near infrared fluorescence technology to identify the “landmark artery” during robot assisted radical prostatectomy. J Videourol (accepted for publication)

  65. Badani KK, Kaul S, Menon M (2007) Evolution of robotic radical prostatectomy :assessment after 2766 procedures. Cancer 110(9):1951–1958

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Ficcara V, Novara G, Fracalanza S et al (2009) A prospective non randomized trial comparing robot assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution. BJU Int 104:534–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Rocco B, Matel DV, Melegari S et al (2009) Robotic vs open prostatectomy in a laparoscopic naïve centre: a matched pair analysis. BJU Int 5

  68. Krambeck AE, DiMarco DS, Rangel LJ et al. (2009) Radical prostatectomy for prostate adenocarcinoma : a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot assisted techniques. BJU Int 103(4):448–453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of Central Florida College of Medicine and Global Robotics Institute, Florida Hospital-Celebration Health, Florida, USA

    Anup Kumar, Srinivas Samavedi, Vladimir Mouraviev, Anthony S. Bates & Vipul R. Patel

  2. VMMC and Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi, India

    Sarvesh Tandon

Authors
  1. Anup Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarvesh Tandon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Srinivas Samavedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vladimir Mouraviev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anthony S. Bates
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Vipul R. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anup Kumar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest for the authors—Anup Kumar, Sarvesh Tandon, Srinivas Samavedi, Vladimir Mouraviev, Anthony S. Bates and Vipul R. Patel.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

No.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kumar, A., Tandon, S., Samavedi, S. et al. Current status of various neurovascular bundle-sparing techniques in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Robotic Surg 10, 187–200 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0607-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0607-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation