Anterior Reconstruction After Radical Prostatectomy

  • Francesco PorpigliaEmail author
  • Riccardo Bertolo
  • Cristian Fiori


When treating localised prostate cancer, excellent oncological outcomes with low rate of complications are nowadays possible with radical prostatectomy (RP) (Bill-Axelson et al., N Engl J Med 364:1708–1717, 2011; Novara et al., Eur Urol 62:382–404, 2012). However, functional outcomes in terms of continence and potency recovery are still less enthusiastic. Indeed, in patients who do not early recover continence quality of everyday life is markedly reduced, especially in younger and more active ones (Sanda et al., N Engl J Med 358:1250–1261, 2008). The proportion of continent patients at one year after surgery ranges from 70% to 100% in the available Literature (Fig. 34.1) (Ficarra et al., Eur Urol 62:405–417, 2012). Such disparities in the literature are probably due to either non-homogeneous definition of continence or measurement methods (questionnaires, number of pads, pad test). Several factors have been identified as leading to, including patient characteristics (body mass index, age, prostate volume, and comorbidities), experience of the surgeon, and surgical precision (Ahlering et al., Curr Urol Rep 14:52–58, 2013).
Fig. 34.1

Prospective and retrospective studies comparing different robot-assisted radical prostatectomy surgical techniques. From the Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy by Ficarra et al. Eur Urol. 2012;62:405–17


  1. 1.
    Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1708–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S, et al. Systematic review and metaanalysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62:382–404.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1250–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and metaanalysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62:405–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ahlering TE, Gordon A, Morales B, Skarecky DW. Preserving continence during robotic prostatectomy. Curr Urol Rep. 2013;14:52–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang W, Huang QM, Liu FP, Mao QQ. Effectiveness of preoperative pelvic floor muscle training for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis. BMC Urol. 2014;14:99.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2009;55:1037–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Porpiglia F, Bertolo R, Manfredi M, et al. Total anatomical reconstruction during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: implications on early recovery of urinary continence. Eur Urol. 2016;69:485–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Galfano A, Di Trapani D, Sozzi F, Strada E, Petralia G, Bramerio M, Ascione A, Gambacorta M, Bocciardi AM. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vora AA, Dajani D, Lynch JH, Kowalczyk KJ. Anatomic and technical considerations for optimizing recovery of urinary function during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Curr Opin Urol. 2013;23:78–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gratzke C, Dovey Z, Novara G, et al. Early catheter removal after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: surgical technique and outcomes for the Aalst technique (ECaRemA study). Eur Urol. 2016;69:917–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ficarra V, Wiklund PN, Rochat CH, et al. The European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) survey of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). BJU Int. 2013;111(4):596–603.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Patel VR, Coelho RF, Palmer KJ, et al. Periurethral suspension stitch during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of the technique and continence outcomes. Eur Urol. 2009;56:472–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tewari A, Jhaveri J, Rao S, et al. Total reconstruction of the vesicourethral junction. BJU Int. 2008;101:871–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kojima Y, Takahashi N, Haga N, 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tewari AK, Bigelow K, Rao S, 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;69:726–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sugimura Y, Hioki T, Yamada Y, Fumino M, Inoue T. An anterior urethral stitch improves urinary incontinence following radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol. 2001;8:153–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Noguchi M, Noda S, Nakashima O, Matsuoka K, Kojiro M. Suspension technique improves rapid recovery of urinary continence following radical retropubic prostatectomy. Kurume Med J. 2004;51:245–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Patel VR, Thaly R, Shah K. Robotic radical prostatectomy: outcomes of 500 cases. BJU Int. 2007;99:1109–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rocco B, Gregori A, Stener S, et al. Posterior reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter allows a rapid recovery of continence after transperitoneal videolaparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2007;51:996–1003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rocco F, Carmignani L, Acquati P, et al. Restoration of posterior aspect of rhabdosphincter shortens continence time after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2006;175:2201–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moinzadeh A, Shunaigat AN, Libertino JA. Urinary incontinence after radical retropubic prostatectomy: the outcome of a surgical technique. BJU Int. 2003;92:355–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Takenaka A, Tewari AK, Leung RA, et al. Preservation of the puboprostatic collar and puboperineoplasty for early recovery of urinary incontinence after robotic prostatectomy: anatomic basis and preliminary outcomes. Eur Urol. 2007;51:433–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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;180:1018–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesco Porpiglia
    • 1
    Email author
  • Riccardo Bertolo
    • 1
  • Cristian Fiori
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Urology, Department of OncologyUniversity of Turin, “San Luigi Gonzaga” HospitalTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations