Tips to Preserve Continence During Robotic Radical Prostatectomy

  • Bernardo Rocco
  • Elisa De Lorenzis
  • Angelica Anna Chiara Grasso


While incontinence and impotence are the two major drawbacks of radical prostatectomy, incontinence seems to be the problem that troubles patients most, even if it occurs less frequently than impotence. The prevalence of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy can be influenced by preoperative patient characteristics, surgeon experience, surgical techniques and methods used to collect and report data. In this chapter we will focus on surgical tips to improve continence recovery during robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), analyzing the procedures step by step.


Radical prostatectomy Robotic surgery Robotic prostatectomy Urinary continence Prostate cancer Surgery technique Continence 


  1. 1.
    Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer (2007). Reviewed and validity confirmed 2011. Available from:
  2. 2.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    von Bodman C, Matsushita K, Savage C, Matikainen MP, Eastham JA, Scardino PT, et al. Recovery of urinary function after radical prostatectomy: predictors of urinary function on preoperative prostate magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol. 2012;187:945–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hakimi AA, Faleck DM, Agalliu I, Rozenblit AM, Chernyak V, Ghavamian R, et al. Preoperative and intraoperative measurements of urethral length as predictors of continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2011;25:1025–30.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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;56:472–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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;59:235–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Licht MR, Klein EA, Tuason L, Levin H. Impact of bladder neck preservation during radical prostatectomy on continence and cancer control. Urology. 1994;44:883–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Katz R, Salomon L, Hoznek A, de la Taille A, Antiphon P, Abbou CC. Positive surgical margins in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the impact of apical dissection, bladder neck remodeling and nerve preservation. J Urol. 2003;169:2049–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    Lee Z, Sehgal SS, Graves RV, Su YK, Llukani E, Monahan K, et al. Functional and oncologic outcomes of graded bladder neck preservation during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2014;28(1):48–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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;25:1873–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin VC, Coughlin G, Savamedi S, Palmer KJ, Coelho RF, Patel VR, et al. Modified transverse plication for bladder neck reconstruction during robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2009;104:878–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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(1):78–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kowalczyk KJ, Huang AC, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Yu HY, Lynch JH, et al. Effect of minimizing tension during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy on urinary function recovery. World J Urol. 2013;31(3):515–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Suardi N, Moschini M, Gallina A, Gandaglia G, Abdollah F, Capitanio U, et al. Nerve-sparing approach during radical prostatectomy is strongly associated with the rate of postoperative urinary continence recovery. BJU Int. 2013;111(5):717–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stolzenburg JU, Kallidonis P, Do M, Dietel A, Häfner T, Rabenalt R, et al. A comparison of outcomes for interfascial and intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2010;76(3):743–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, Do M, Horn LC, Liatsikos EN. Modular training for residents with no prior experience with open pelvic surgery in endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2006;49:491–8; discussion 9–500.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Myers RP, Cahill DR, Devine RM, King BF. Anatomy of radical prostatectomy as defined by magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol. 1998;159:2148–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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 transaction: a novel approach for ameliorating apical margin positivity during robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010;106:1364–73.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Coughlin G, Dangle PP, Patil NN, Palmer KJ, Woolard J, Jensen C, et al. Surgery illustrated – focus on details. Modified posterior reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter: application to robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2008;102(10):1482–5.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Orvieto MA, Sivaraman A, Palmer KJ, Coughlin G, et al. Influence of modified posterior reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter on early recovery of continence and anastomotic leakage rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2011;59(1):72–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rocco B, Cozzi G, Spinelli MG, Coelho RF, Patel VR, Tewari A, et al. Posterior musculofascial reconstruction after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2012;62(5):779–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van Velthoven RF, Ahlering TE, Peltier A, Skarecky DW, Clayman RV. Technique for laparoscopic running urethrovesical anastomosis: the single knot method. Urology. 2003;61(4):699–702.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernardo Rocco
    • 1
  • Elisa De Lorenzis
    • 1
  • Angelica Anna Chiara Grasso
    • 1
  1. 1.Clinica Urologica I, Università degli Studi di Milano, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda – Ospedale Maggiore PoliclinicoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations