Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preserving Continence during Laparoscopic (LRP) or Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Functional Urologic Surgery in Neurogenic and Oncologic Diseases

Part of the book series: Urodynamics, Neurourology and Pelvic Floor Dysfunctions ((UNPFD))

  • 458 Accesses

Abstract

Prostate cancer (PC) is currently being detected at an earlier clinical stage and smaller volume than 20 years ago, as a result of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening [1]. PSA screening has also resulted in earlier diagnosis and lower PC mortality as more and more patients present with organ-confined disease [2]. Thus, an increasing number of radical prostatectomy (RP) procedures have been performed over the years [3]. RP featured a high rate of complications and sequelae including blood loss, postoperative urinary incontinence, and erectile dysfunction. Postoperative urinary incontinence has been shown to be bothersome and has a relevant negative effect on the patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life (QoL) [4]. Nevertheless, the improvements in the knowledge of anatomy of the neurovascular bundles, the puboprostatic ligament, the posterior rhabdosphincter, the urinary sphincter, and the dorsal venous complex have led to an extraordinary improvement of the surgical technique and to the standardization of the retropubic RP [4–6]. Since Walsh’s contribution, many authors have shared important updates in order to optimize the surgical technique, with the purpose of reducing RP-related urinary incontinence [7].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Descazeaud A, et al. Can pT0 stage of prostate cancer be predicted before radical prostatectomy? Eur Urol. 2006;50(6):1248–52; discussion 1253.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jemal A, et al. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59(4):225–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schroder FH, et al. Early detection of prostate cancer in 2007. Part 1: PSA and PSA kinetics. Eur Urol. 2008;53(3):468–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rocco F, et al. Restoration of posterior aspect of rhabdosphincter shortens continence time after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2006;175(6):2201–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol. 1982;128(3):492–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Myers RP, Goellner JR, Cahill DR. Prostate shape, external striated urethral sphincter and radical prostatectomy: the apical dissection. J Urol. 1987;138(3):543–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Steiner MS, Morton RA, Walsh PC. Impact of anatomical radical prostatectomy on urinary continence. J Urol. 1991;145(3):512–4; discussion 514–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Guillonneau B, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: technical and early oncological assessment of 40 operations. Eur Urol. 1999;36(1):14–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jurczok A, et al. Prospective non-randomized evaluation of four mediators of the systemic response after extraperitoneal laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2007;99(6):1461–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Miyake H, et al. Comparison of surgical stress between laparoscopy and open surgery in the field of urology by measurement of humoral mediators. Int J Urol. 2002;9(6):329–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fracalanza S, et al. Is robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy less invasive than retropubic radical prostatectomy? Results from a prospective, unrandomized, comparative study. BJU Int. 2008;101(9):1145–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Link BA, et al. The impact of prostate gland weight in robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2008;180(3):928–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wiltz AL, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy in overweight and obese patients: oncological and validated-functional outcomes. Urology. 2009;73(2):316–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zorn KC, et al. Continued improvement of perioperative, pathological and continence outcomes during 700 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies. Can J Urol. 2009;16(4):4742–9; discussion 4749.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Finley DS, et al. Hypothermic robotic radical prostatectomy: impact on continence. J Endourol. 2009;23(9):1443–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Samadi DB, et al. Improvements in robot-assisted prostatectomy: the effect of surgeon experience and technical changes on oncologic and functional outcomes. J Endourol. 2010;24(7):1105–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Murphy DG, et al. 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):1358–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Martin AD, et al. Incontinence after radical prostatectomy: a patient centered analysis and implications for preoperative counseling. J Urol. 2011;186(1):204–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gautam G, et al. Posterior rhabdosphincter reconstruction during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: critical analysis of techniques and outcomes. Urology. 2010;76(3):734–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Menon M, et al. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tewari A, et al. Total reconstruction of the vesico-urethral junction. BJU Int. 2008;101(7):871–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Woo JR, et al. Impact of posterior rhabdosphincter reconstruction during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: retrospective analysis of time to continence. J Endourol. 2009;23(12):1995–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Coelho RF, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ficarra V, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Steiner MS. The puboprostatic ligament and the male urethral suspensory mechanism: an anatomic study. Urology. 1994;44(4):530–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Patel VR, et al. Periurethral suspension stitch during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of the technique and continence outcomes. Eur Urol. 2009;56(3):472–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Chung JS, et al. Comparison of oncological results, functional outcomes, and complications for transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a single surgeon’s experience. J Endourol. 2011;25(5):787–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lei Y, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sammon J, et al. Anastomosis during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: randomized controlled trial comparing barbed and standard monofilament suture. Urology. 2011;78(3):572–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Krane LS, et al. Posterior support for urethrovesical anastomosis in robotic radical prostatectomy: single surgeon analysis. Can J Urol. 2009;16(5):4836–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Touijer K, et al. Comprehensive prospective comparative analysis of outcomes between open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy conducted in 2003 to 2005. J Urol. 2008;179(5):1811–7; discussion 1817.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Tewari A, et al. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int. 2003;92(3):205–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kim SC, et al. Factors determining functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy: robot-assisted versus retropubic. Eur Urol. 2011;60(3):413–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Joseph JV, et al. Robot-assisted vs pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: are there any differences? BJU Int. 2005;96(1):39–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hu JC, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2009;302(14):1557–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Barry MJ, et al. Adverse effects of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy among a nationwide random sample of medicare-age men. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(5):513–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Ficarra V, et al. Systematic review of methods for reporting combined outcomes after radical prostatectomy and proposal of a novel system: the survival, continence, and potency (SCP) classification. Eur Urol. 2012;61(3):541–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urologic Surgery, Max Fourestier Hospital, Nanterre, France

    Aurel Messas

  2. Department of Urology, Clinique de l’Alma, Paris, France

    Youness Ahallal

Authors
  1. Aurel Messas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Youness Ahallal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aurel Messas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept Medico-Surgical Sci&Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Antonio Carbone

  2. Dept Medico-Surgical Sci&Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Giovanni Palleschi

  3. Dept Medico-Surgical Sci&Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Antonio Luigi Pastore

  4. Urologic Surgery, Max Fourestier Hospital, Nanterre, France

    Aurel Messas

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Messas, A., Ahallal, Y. (2016). Preserving Continence during Laparoscopic (LRP) or Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP). In: Carbone, A., Palleschi, G., Pastore, A., Messas, A. (eds) Functional Urologic Surgery in Neurogenic and Oncologic Diseases. Urodynamics, Neurourology and Pelvic Floor Dysfunctions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29191-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29191-8_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29189-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29191-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation