Improving Outcomes for Early Return of Potency

  • Marcelo A. Orvieto
  • Vipul R. Patel


Prostate cancer (CaP) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. It is estimated that more than two million men are currently living with prostate cancer within the European Union.1 In the USA, data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry indicates that every year younger and healthier men are being diagnosed with localized prostate cancer2 with an annual percent increase estimated at 9.5%. Though a number of treatment options are available for this group population, radical prostatectomy (RP) remains the gold-standard approach offering the best chances of long-term cure. This patient population poses an even more challenging scenario for the urologic oncologist, as younger patients will commonly have higher expectations from any given treatment option, seeking for optimal cancer control without impairing postoperative functional outcomes such as continence and potency.


Erectile dysfunction Potency Prostate cancer Radical prostatectomy 


  1. 1.
    Ferlay J, Autier P, Boniol M, Heanue M, Colombet M, Boyle P. Estimates of the cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2006. Ann Oncol. 2007;18(3):581-592.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stephenson RA. Prostate cancer trends in the era of prostate-specific antigen. An update of incidence, mortality, and clinical factors from the SEER database. Urol Clin North Am. 2002;29:173-181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Young HH. Conservative perineal prostatectomy: the results of two years’ experience and report of seventy-five cases. Ann Surg. 1905;41(4):549-557.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol. 1982;128:492-497.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ahlering TE, Rodriguez E, Skarecky DW. Overcoming obstacles: nerve-sparing issues in radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2008;22(4):745-750.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Orvieto MA, Patel VR. Evolution of robot-assisted radical prostatecomy. Scand J Surg. 2009;98(2):76-88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Finley DS, Rodriguez E Jr, Skarecky DW, Ahlering TE. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the recovery of potency after radical prostatectomy: effect of unilateral vs bilateral nerve sparing. BJU Int. 2009;104(10):1484-1489.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chien GW, Mikhail AA, Orvieto MA, et al. Modified clipless antegrade nerve preservation in robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with validated sexual function evaluation. Urology. 2005;66(2):419-423.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Finley DS, Osann K, Skarecky D, Ahlering TE. Hypothermic nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: rationale, feasibility, and effect on early continence. Urology. 2009;73(4):691-696.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chuang MS, O’Connor RC, Laven BA, Orvieto MA, Brendler CB. Early release of the neurovascular bundles and optical loupe magnification lead to improved and earlier return of potency following radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005;173(2):537-539.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Magera JS Jr, Inman BA, Slezak JM, Bagniewski SM, Sebo TJ, Myers RP. Increased optical magnification from 2.5× to 4.3× with technical modification lowers the positive margin rate in open radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2008;179(1):130-135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M, Members of the VIP Team. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int. 2003;92(3):205-210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krambeck AE, DiMarco DS, Rangel LJ, et al. Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques. BJU Int. 2009;103(4):448-453.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Binder J, Kramer W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2001;87(4):408-410.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lepor H, Gregerman M, Crosby R, Mostofi FK, Walsh PC. 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. 1985;133(2):207-212.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Quinlan DM, Epstein JI, Carter BS, Walsh PC. Sexual function following radical prostatectomy: influence of preservation of neurovascular bundles. J Urol. 1991;145(5):998-1002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Costello AJ, Brooks M, Cole OJ. Anatomical studies of the neurovascular bundle and cavernosal nerves. BJU Int. 2004;94(7):1071-1076.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tewari A, Takenaka A, Mtui E, 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):314-323.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martïnez-Piňeiro L, Cansino JR, Sanchez C, Tabernero A, Cisneros J, de la Peňa JJ. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Differences between interfascial and intrafascial technique. Eur Urol. 2006;5(suppl):331.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stolzenburg JU, Schwalenberg T, Horn LC, Neuhaus J, Constantinides C, Liatsikos EN. Anatomical landmarks of radical prostatecomy. Eur Urol. 2007;51(3):629-639.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kiyoshima K, Yokomizo A, Yoshida T, 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):463-468.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Villers A, Stamey TA, Yemoto C, Rischmann P, McNeal JE. Modified extrafascial radical retropublic prostatectomy technique decreases frequency of positive surgical margins in T2 cancers<2 cm(3). Eur Urol. 2000;38(1):64-73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zorn KC, Gofrit ON, Orvieto MA, Mikhail AA, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: functional and pathologic outcomes with interfascial nerve preservation. Eur Urol. 2007;51(3):755-762.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stolzenburg JU, Kallidonis P, Do M, et al. A comparison of outcomes for interfascial and intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2010;76(3):743-748.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Orvieto MA, Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Mathe M, Palmer K, Patel VR. Erectile dysfunction after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2010;10(5):747-754.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chauhan S, Coelho RF, Rocco B, Palmer KJ, Orvieto MA, Patel VR. Techniques of nerve-sparing and potency outcomes following robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Int Braz J Urol. 2010;36(3):259-272.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Patel VR, Coelho RF, Chauhan S, et al. Continence, potency and oncological outcomes after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: early trifecta results of a high-volume surgeon. BJU Int. 2010;106(5):696-702.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Van der Poel HG, de Blok W, Joshi N, van Muilekom E. Preservation of lateral prostatic fascia is associated with urine continence after robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2009;55(4):892-900.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zorn KC, Gofrit ON, Steinberg GP, et al. Planned nerve preservation to reduce positive surgical margins during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2008;22:1303-1309.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ong AM, Su LM, Varkarakis I, et al. Nerve sparing radical prostatectomy: effects of hemostatic energy sources on the recovery of cavernous nerve function in a canine model. J Urol. 2004;172:1318-1322.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Chou D, Skarecky DW. Feasibility study for robotic radical prostatectomy cautery-free neurovascular bundle preservation. Urology. 2005;65(5):994-997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rodriguez E Jr, Finley DS, Skarecky D, Ahlering TE. Single institution 2-year patient reported validated sexual function outcomes after nerve sparing robot assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009;181(1):259-263.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gill IS, Ukimura O, Rubinstein M, et al. Lateral pedicle control during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: refined technique. Urology. 2005;65(1):23-27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gianduzzo TR, Colombo JR Jr, Haber GP, et al. KTP laser nerve sparing radical prostatectomy: comparison of ultrasonic and cold scissor dissection on cavernous nerve function. J Urol. 2009;181:2760-2766.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Patel VR, Shah K, Palmer KJ, Thaly R, Coughlin G. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a report of the current state. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2007;7:1269-1278.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Orvieto MA, Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Orvieto MA, Palmer KJ, Patel VR. Early retrograde release of the neurovascular bundles during robotic assisted radical prostatectomy improves early return of potency. J Endourol. (In press)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    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;66:1261-1265.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody J. VIP Team: Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technique. J Urol. 2003;169:2289-2292.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol. 2007;51:648-657; discussion 657-658.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Menon M, Shrivastava A, Bhandari M, Satyanarayana R, Siva S, Agarwal PK. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technical modifications in 2009. Eur Urol. 2009;56:89-96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Guru KA, Perlmutter AE, Butt ZM, Peabody JO. Hydrodissection for preservation of neurovascular bundle during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Can J Urol. 2008;15:4000-4003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rocco B, Matei DV, Melegari S, et al. Robotic vs open prostatectomy in a laparoscopically naive centre: a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int. 2009;104(7):991-995.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hakimi AA, Blitstein J, Feder M, Shapiro E, Ghavamian R. Direct comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of robotic-assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: single-surgeon experience. Urology. 2009;73(1):119-123.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bentas W, Wolfram M, Jones J, Bräutigam R, Kramer W, Binder J. Robotic technology and the translation of open radical prostatectomy to laparoscopy: the early Frankfurt experience with robotic radical prostatectomy and one year follow-up. Eur Urol. 2003;44(2):175-181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Palmer KJ, Rocco B, Patel M, Patel VR. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. A review of current outcomes. BJU Int. 2009;104(10):1428-1435.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mendiola FP, Zorn KC, Mikhail AA, et al. Urinary and sexual function outcomes among different age groups after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2008;22(3):519-524.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ahlering TE, Kaplan AG, Yee DS, Skarecky DW. Prostate weight and early potency in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2008;72(6):1263-1268.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Madeb R, Golijanin D, Knopf J, et al. Patient-reported validated functional outcome after extraperitoneal robotic-assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. JSLS. 2007;11(4):443-448.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Van der Poel HG, de Blok W. Role of extent of fascia preservation and erectile function after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Urology. 2009;73(4):816-821.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Murphy DG, Kerger M, Crowe H, Peters JS, Costello AJ. Operative details and oncological and functional outcome of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: 400 cases with a minimum of 12 months follow-up. Eur Urol. 2009;55(6):1367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcelo A. Orvieto
    • 1
  • Vipul R. Patel
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Section of UrologyUniversity of Chicago Medical CenterChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Florida Hospital Global Robotics Institute Florida Hospital Celebration HealthCelebrationUSA
  3. 3.University of Central Florida College of Medicine, Florida Hospital Celebration HealthCelebrationUSA
  4. 4.Florida Hospital Celebration Health Global Robotics InstituteCelebrationUSA

Personalised recommendations