The Apical Dissection

  • Walter ArtibaniEmail author
  • Giovanni Cacciamani


Prostate apex dissection during radical prostatectomy is a critical step in order to assure proper oncologic and functional outcomes. Full knowledge of the surgical anatomy of the prostate apex (shape variations, attachments to pelvic floor musculature, peri-prostatic fasciae, junction with membranous urethra, neural and vascular anatomy) is a prerequisite to achieve an effective surgical dissection.


  1. 1.
    Coakley FV, et al. Urinary continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy: relationship with membranous urethral length on preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol. 2002;168(3):1032–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hammerer P, Huland H. Urodynamic evaluation of changes in urinary control after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 1997;157(1):233–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Myers RP. Practical surgical anatomy for radical prostatectomy. Urol Clin North Am. 2001;28(3):473–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee SE, 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Artibani W, Ficarra V, Guillonneau BD. Open to debate. The motion: a robot is needed to perform the best nerve sparing prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2007;52(1):275–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Artibani W, et al. Learning curve and preliminary experience with da Vinci-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urol Int. 2008;80(3):237–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Artibani W, Novara G. Cancer-related outcome and learning curve in retropubic radical prostatectomy: “if you need an operation, the most important step is to choose the right surgeon”. Eur Urol. 2008;53(5):874–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ficarra V, et al. Evidence from robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2007;51(1):45–55; discussion 56.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Walz J, et al. 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. Eur Urol. 2016;70(2):301–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Novara G, et al. Preoperative criteria to select patients for bilateral nerve-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med. 2010;7(2 Pt 1):839–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Novara G, et al. Evaluating urinary continence and preoperative predictors of urinary continence after robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2010;184(3):1028–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Novara G, et al. Trifecta outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2011;107(1):100–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Novara G, et al. Prospective evaluation with standardised criteria for postoperative complications after robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2010;57(3):363–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ficarra V, et al. Predictors of positive surgical margins after laparoscopic robot assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009;182(6):2682–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ficarra V, et al. A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution. BJU Int. 2009;104(4):534–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ficarra V, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2009;55(5):1037–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyAzienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, University of VeronaVeronaItaly

Personalised recommendations