Anatomic Foundations and Physiology of Erectile Function and Urinary Continence

  • Deepansh DalelaEmail author
  • Mani Menon


The widespread use of PSA screening since the 1990s and the consequent downward stage migration of incident prostate cancer (PCa) in the United States has led to an increasing number of younger patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for clinically localized PCa. While this has led to higher disease specific and overall survival, it has also highlighted the critical role of functional outcomes (i.e., urinary continence and erectile function) in affecting the health-related quality of life for the PCa survivor. It is in this context that robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery offers tremendous opportunities, with its magnified, 3-dimensional view, more degree of freedom of movements, and the ability to carry out precise tissue dissections. The ability to translate these technological advancements into superior functional outcomes is, however, firmly predicated on a clear understanding of the underlying principles of anatomical and physiological interactions responsible for maintaining urinary continence and erectile function. This chapter is intended to discuss the evolution of current understanding of these aspects.


Radical prostatectomy Robotics Urinary continence Erectile function Neurovascular bundle Veil of Aphrodite Periprostatic fascia External urinary sphincter 



Financial disclosures and conflicts of interest: None.


  1. 1.
    Rogers CG, Trock BP, Walsh PC. Preservation of accessory pudendal arteries during radical retropubic prostatectomy: surgical technique and results. Urology. 2004;64(1):148–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rosen MP, Greenfield AJ, Walker TG, Grant P, Guben JK, Dubrow J, et al. Arteriogenic impotence: findings in 195 impotent men examined with selective internal pudendal angiography. Young Investigator's Award. Radiology. 1990;174(3 Pt 2):1043–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Muller J. Über die organischen Nerven der erectilen männlichen Geschlectsorgane des Menschen und der Säugethiere [concerning the autonomic nerves of the male erectile genital organs of man and mammals]. Berlin: F. Dummler; 1836.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Finkle AL, Saunders JB. Sexual potency in aging males. III. Technic of avoiding nerve injury in perineal prostatic operations. Am J Surg. 1960;99:23–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schlegel PN, Walsh PC. Neuroanatomical approach to radical cystoprostatectomy with preservation of sexual function. J Urol. 1987;138(6):1402–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol. 1982;128(3):492–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Walsh PC, Lepor H, Eggleston JC. Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations. Prostate. 1983;4(5):473–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Menon M, Shrivastava A, Tewari A, Sarle R, Hemal A, Peabody JO, et al. Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol. 2002;168(3):945–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tewari A, Peabody JO, Fischer M, Sarle R, Vallancien G, Delmas V, et al. An operative and anatomic study to help in nerve sparing during laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2003;43(5):444–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Costello AJ, Brooks M, Cole OJ. Anatomical studies of the neurovascular bundle and cavernosal nerves. BJU Int. 2004;94(7):1071–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kourambas J, Angus DG, Hosking P, Chou ST. A histological study of Denonvilliers' fascia and its relationship to the neurovascular bundle. Br J Urol. 1998;82(3):408–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kiyoshima K, Yokomizo A, Yoshida T, Tomita K, Yonemasu H, Nakamura M, et al. Anatomical features of periprostatic tissue and its surroundings: a histological analysis of 79 radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2004;34(8):463–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Takenaka A, Murakami G, Soga H, Han SH, Arai Y, Fujisawa M. Anatomical analysis of the neurovascular bundle supplying penile cavernous tissue to ensure a reliable nerve graft after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2004;172(3):1032–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lunacek A, Schwentner C, Fritsch H, Bartsch G, Strasser H. Anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy: 'curtain dissection' of the neurovascular bundle. BJU Int. 2005;95(9):1226–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eichelberg C, Erbersdobler A, Michl U, Schlomm T, Salomon G, Graefen M, et al. Nerve distribution along the prostatic capsule. Eur Urol. 2007;51(1):105–10. discussion 10-1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tewari A, Takenaka A, Mtui E, Horninger W, Peschel R, Bartsch G, et al. The proximal neurovascular plate and the tri-zonal neural architecture around the prostate gland: importance in the athermal robotic technique of nerve-sparing prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2006;98(2):314–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ganzer R, Blana A, Gaumann A, Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, Bach T, et al. Topographical anatomy of periprostatic and capsular nerves: quantification and computerised planimetry. Eur Urol. 2008;54(2):353–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walz J, Burnett AL, Costello AJ, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Guillonneau B, et al. A critical analysis of the current knowledge of surgical anatomy related to optimization of cancer control and preservation of continence and erection in candidates for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2010;57(2):179–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Montorsi F, Salonia A, Suardi N, Gallina A, Zanni G, Briganti A, et al. Improving the preservation of the urethral sphincter and neurovascular bundles during open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2005;48(6):938–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Costello AJ, Dowdle BW, Namdarian B, Pedersen J, Murphy DG. Immunohistochemical study of the cavernous nerves in the periprostatic region. BJU Int. 2011;107(8):1210–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kaul S, Bhandari A, Hemal A, Savera A, Shrivastava A, Menon M. Robotic radical prostatectomy with preservation of the prostatic fascia: a feasibility study. Urology. 2005;66(6):1261–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Menon M, Kaul S, Bhandari A, Shrivastava A, Tewari A, Hemal A. Potency following robotic radical prostatectomy: a questionnaire based analysis of outcomes after conventional nerve sparing and prostatic fascia sparing techniques. J Urol. 2005;174(6):2291–6. discussion 6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nielsen ME, Schaeffer EM, Marschke P, Walsh PC. High anterior release of the levator fascia improves sexual function following open radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2008;180(6):2557–64. discussion 64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hubanks JM, Umbreit EC, Karnes RJ, Myers RP. Open radical retropubic prostatectomy using high anterior release of the levator fascia and constant haptic feedback in bilateral neurovascular bundle preservation plus early postoperative phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibition: a contemporary series. Eur Urol. 2012;61(5):878–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Alsaid B, Bessede T, Diallo D, Moszkowicz D, Karam I, Benoit G, et al. Division of autonomic nerves within the neurovascular bundles distally into corpora cavernosa and corpus spongiosum components: immunohistochemical confirmation with three-dimensional reconstruction. Eur Urol. 2011;59(6):902–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Villers A, McNeal JE, Freiha FS, Boccon-Gibod L, Stamey TA. Invasion of Denonvilliers' fascia in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 1993;149(4):793–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Savera AT, Kaul S, Badani K, Stark AT, Shah NL, Menon M. Robotic radical prostatectomy with the "Veil of Aphrodite" technique: histologic evidence of enhanced nerve sparing. Eur Urol. 2006;49(6):1065–73. discussion 73-4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, Do M, Schwalenberg T, Winkler M, Dietel A, et al. Intrafascial nerve-sparing endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008;53(5):931–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stolzenburg JU, Kallidonis P, Do M, Dietel A, Hafner T, Rabenalt R, et al. A comparison of outcomes for interfascial and intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2010;76(3):743–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zheng T, Zhang X, Ma X, Li HZ, Gao JP, Cai W, et al. A matched-pair comparison between bilateral intrafascial and interfascial nerve-sparing techniques in extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Asian J Androl. 2013;15(4):513–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tewari AK, Srivastava A, Huang MW, Robinson BD, Shevchuk MM, Durand M, et al. Anatomical grades of nerve sparing: a risk-stratified approach to neural-hammock sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). BJU Int. 2011;108(6 Pt 2):984–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schatloff O, Chauhan S, Sivaraman A, Kameh D, Palmer KJ, Patel VR. Anatomic grading of nerve sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;61(4):796–802.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):405–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kojima Y, Takahashi N, Haga N, Nomiya M, Yanagida T, Ishibashi K, et al. Urinary incontinence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: pathophysiology and intraoperative techniques to improve surgical outcome. Int J Urol. 2013;20(11):1052–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Freire MP, Weinberg AC, Lei Y, Soukup JR, Lipsitz SR, Prasad SM, et al. Anatomic bladder neck preservation during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of technique and outcomes. Eur Urol. 2009;56(6):972–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Li-Ming S, Smith J. Laparoscopic and Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy and Pelvic Lymphadenectomy. In: Kavoussi L, Novick A, Partin A, Peters C, editors. Campbell-Walsh urology. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2012.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chung B, Sommer G, Brooks J. Anatomy of the Lower Urinary Tract and Male Genitalia. In: Kavoussi L, Novick A, Partin A, Peters C, editors. Campbell-Walsh urology. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2012.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schaeffer E, Partin A, Lepor H, Walsh PC. Radical Retropubic and Perineal Prostatectomy. In: Kavoussi L, Novick A, Partin A, Peters C, editors. Campbell-Walsh urology. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2012.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Myers RP, Villers A. Anatomic considerations in radical prostatectomy. In: Kirby R, Partin A, Feneley M, Parsons J, editors. Prostate cancer; principle and practice. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis; 2006. p. 701–13.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lee SE, Byun SS, Lee HJ, Song SH, Chang IH, Kim YJ, et al. Impact of variations in prostatic apex shape on early recovery of urinary continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 2006;68(1):137–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Myers RP, Cahill DR, Kay PA, Camp JJ, Devine RM, King BF, et al. Puboperineales: muscular boundaries of the male urogenital hiatus in 3D from magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol. 2000;164(4):1412–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Brooks JD, Chao WM, Kerr J. Male pelvic anatomy reconstructed from the visible human data set. J Urol. 1998;159(3):868–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Strasser H, Klima G, Poisel S, Horninger W, Bartsch G. Anatomy and innervation of the rhabdosphincter of the male urethra. Prostate. 1996;28(1):24–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nyarangi-Dix JN, Radtke JP, Hadaschik B, Pahernik S, Hohenfellner M. 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(3):891–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Porpiglia F, Fiori C, Grande S, Morra I, Scarpa RM. Selective versus standard ligature of the deep venous complex during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: effects on continence, blood loss, and margin status. Eur Urol. 2009;55(6):1377–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lei Y, Alemozaffar M, Williams SB, Hevelone N, Lipsitz SR, Plaster BA, et al. Athermal division and selective suture ligation of the dorsal vein complex during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of technique and outcomes. Eur Urol. 2011;59(2):235–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tewari AK, Srivastava A, Mudaliar K, Tan GY, Grover S, El Douaihy Y, et al. Anatomical retro-apical technique of synchronous (posterior and anterior) urethral transection: a novel approach for ameliorating apical margin positivity during robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010;106(9):1364–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schlomm T, Heinzer H, Steuber T, Salomon G, Engel O, Michl U, et al. Full functional-length urethral sphincter preservation during radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2011;60(2):320–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Choi WW, Freire MP, Soukup JR, Yin L, Lipsitz SR, Carvas F, et al. Nerve-sparing technique and urinary control after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2011;29(1):21–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Steineck G, Bjartell A, Hugosson J, Axen E, Carlsson S, Stranne J, et al. Degree of preservation of the neurovascular bundles during radical prostatectomy and urinary continence 1 year after surgery. Eur Urol. 2015;67(3):559–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Reeves F, Preece P, Kapoor J, Everaerts W, Murphy DG, Corcoran NM, et al. Preservation of the neurovascular bundles is associated with improved time to continence after radical prostatectomy but not long-term continence rates: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015;68(4):692–704.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Michl U, Tennstedt P, Feldmeier L, Mandel P, Oh SJ, Ahyai S, et al. Nerve-sparing surgery technique, not the preservation of the neurovascular bundles, leads to improved long-term continence rates after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2016;69(4):584–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lin VC, Coughlin G, Savamedi S, Palmer KJ, Coelho RF, Patel VR. Modified transverse plication for bladder neck reconstruction during robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2009;104(6):878–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lee DI, Wedmid A, Mendoza P, Sharma S, Walicki M, Hastings R, et al. Bladder neck plication stitch: a novel technique during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy to improve recovery of urinary continence. J Endourol. 2011;25(12):1873–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Stolzenburg JU, Liatsikos EN, Rabenalt R, Do M, Sakelaropoulos G, Horn LC, et al. Nerve sparing endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy—effect of puboprostatic ligament preservation on early continence and positive margins. Eur Urol. 2006;49(1):103–11. discussion 11-2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Tewari AK, Bigelow K, Rao S, Takenaka A, El-Tabi N, Te A, et al. Anatomic restoration technique of continence mechanism and preservation of puboprostatic collar: a novel modification to achieve early urinary continence in men undergoing robotic prostatectomy. Urology. 2007;69(4):726–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Asimakopoulos AD, Annino F, D'Orazio A, Pereira CF, Mugnier C, Hoepffner JL, et al. Complete periprostatic anatomy preservation during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP): the new pubovesical complex-sparing technique. Eur Urol. 2010;58(3):407–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Galfano A, Ascione A, Grimaldi S, Petralia G, Strada E, Bocciardi AM. A new anatomic approach for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a feasibility study for completely intrafascial surgery. Eur Urol. 2010;58(3):457–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Galfano A, Di Trapani D, Sozzi F, Strada E, Petralia G, Bramerio M, et al. Beyond the learning curve of the Retzius-sparing approach for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncologic and functional results of the first 200 patients with >/= 1 year of follow-up. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):974–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Noguchi M, Kakuma T, Suekane S, Nakashima O, Mohamed ER, Matsuoka K. A randomized clinical trial of suspension technique for improving early recovery of urinary continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2008;102(8):958–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Patel VR, Coelho RF, Palmer KJ, Rocco B. Periurethral suspension stitch during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of the technique and continence outcomes. Eur Urol. 2009;56(3):472–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rocco F, Carmignani L, Acquati P, Gadda F, Dell'Orto P, Rocco B, et al. Restoration of posterior aspect of rhabdosphincter shortens continence time after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2006;175(6):2201–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Joshi N, de Blok W, van Muilekom E, van der Poel H. Impact of posterior musculofascial reconstruction on early continence after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: results of a prospective parallel group trial. Eur Urol. 2010;58(1):84–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Menon M, Muhletaler F, Campos M, Peabody JO. Assessment of early continence after reconstruction of the periprostatic tissues in patients undergoing computer assisted (robotic) prostatectomy: results of a 2 group parallel randomized controlled trial. J Urol. 2008;180(3):1018–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Sammon JD, Muhletaler F, Peabody JO, Diaz-Insua M, Satyanaryana R, Menon M. Long-term functional urinary outcomes comparing single- vs double-layer urethrovesical anastomosis: two-year follow-up of a two-group parallel randomized controlled trial. Urology. 2010;76(5):1102–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Hurtes X, Roupret M, Vaessen C, Pereira H, Faivre d'Arcier B, Cormier L, et al. Anterior suspension combined with posterior reconstruction during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy improves early return of urinary continence: a prospective randomized multicentre trial. BJU Int. 2012;110(6):875–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Tewari A, Jhaveri J, Rao S, Yadav R, Bartsch G, Te A, et al. Total reconstruction of the vesico-urethral junction. BJU Int. 2008;101(7):871–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.VUI Center for Outcomes Research, Analytics and Evaluation, Vattikuti Urology InstituteHenry Ford Health SystemDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations