Abstract
Objectives
We investigated the correlation between surgical outcomes and postoperative urinary continence recovery in robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).
Methods
Patients who underwent RARP in our institution (n = 195) were included in this study. Preserved urethral length (PUL) was assessed during the procedure. Other outcomes of the surgical procedure were collected from operative records. Kaplan–Meier analysis with log‐rank test was used to compare urinary continence recovery rate with the PUL, sparing of the neurovascular bundle (NVB), and other surgical procedures. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazards model, and p‐values of <0.05 were considered significant.
Results
Patients with a PUL ≥26 mm had 10.0%, 24.7%, 36.6%, and 89.0% continence recovery rates at 30, 60, 90, and 365 days after surgery, respectively, while patients with a PUL <26 mm had 0%, 17.8%, 26.1%, and 80.9% recovery rates, respectively. Kaplan–Meier curves showed significantly better postoperative urinary continence recovery at 30 days after RARP in patients with a PUL ≥26 mm than those with a PUL <26 mm (p = 0.0028) and in patients with NVB preservation than those with no NVB preservation (p = 0.014). Urinary continence recovery within 30, 60, and 90 days after surgery was 90.6% for patients with a PUL of ≥26 mm and NVB preservation, while only 82.3% for patients with a PUL of <26 mm or no NVB preservation.
Conclusion
Our results suggest that a PUL ≥26 mm and NVB preservation after RARP correlate with a significantly higher postoperative rate of recovery of urinary continence.
Keywords: prostate neoplasm, robotic surgical procedures, urinary incontinence
Abbreviations & Acronyms
- BMI
body mass index
- IRB
institutional review board
- MRI
magnetic resonance imaging
- MUL
membranous urethral length
- NVB
neurovascular bundle
- PSA
prostate‐specific antigen
- PSM
positive surgical margin
- PUL
preserved urethral length
- RARP
robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy
- ROC
receiver operating characteristic
INTRODUCTION
In 2018, 92 021 men in Japan developed prostate cancer, the highest among all carcinomas 1 and the sixth highest cause of cancer deaths in Japan in 2020 (12 759 deaths). 2
A common treatment for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer is robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). However, after surgery, urinary incontinence can persist and reduce quality of life by affecting physical activity, social relationships, emotional health, ability to travel, anxiety levels, and depression. 3 Therefore, urinary incontinence after RARP is a serious concern.
Factors associated with postoperative incontinence include patient selection, pre‐ and postoperative membranous urethral length (MUL), and intraoperative procedures affecting the cavernous nerve of the penis, fascia, and ligaments. In addition, the postoperative duration of urinary catheter placement has been mentioned as associated with postoperative incontinence in previous reports. 4 Further, a study revealed that sympathetic, sensory, and nitrergic nerves are distributed in the internal and external urethral sphincter along with autonomic fibers within the neurovascular bundles (NVBs). 5 The authors concluded that during radical prostatectomy, the NVBs should be preserved. 5 Although various factors may affect postoperative urinary incontinence, a definitive factor has not been determined.
In our previous study, preserved urethral length (PUL) after RARP was found to correlate significantly with postoperative urinary continence recovery rate. 6 In this study, we measured the PUL quantitatively during RARP and investigated the association of both PUL and NVB preservation with postoperative urinary continence recovery.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
This study was approved by our institute's institutional review board (IRB) (IRB number: A19‐199). Patients who underwent RARP for prostate cancer at our institution between May 2020 and March 2022 were enrolled in the study.
Patient characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and pathological findings, including age, body mass index (BMI), preoperative prostate‐specific antigen (PSA), date of surgery, presence of urinary continence after RARP, number of days to achieve urinary continence, date of the last consultation, total operative time, console time, loss of blood volume, weight of the resected prostate, pathological T stage, surgical margin status, and follow‐up periods, were obtained from medical records, as described previously. 6 Continence recovery was indicated when social continence was attained (use of a small 20‐mL pad required daily), as described previously. 6 On postoperative day 6, urethral catheters were removed, and patients were instructed to perform pelvic floor exercises postoperatively.
Operative records and case summaries revealed surgical skill outcomes, such as preservation of NVBs, the puboprostatic ligament, endopelvic fascia, and PUL.
Surgical techniques of RARP
Transperitoneal RARP with six ports was performed, as described previously. 6 Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings and the positive prostate biopsy site indicated the sparing side for the NVB. Bilateral NVB were spared when the positive prostate biopsy site was in the transition zone. The PUL was measured using a ruler intracorporeally prior to incision of the urethra, with the prostate pulled superiorly (Figure 1). Only posterior reconstruction was performed. RARP was performed by 9 surgeons as an operator. One surgeon (T.F.) also participated in all of the procedures as an instructive assistant.
FIGURE 1.
Measurement of the preserved urethral length (PUL). The white arrow indicates urethral length. In this example, the PUL is 28 mm. The yellow arrows indicate the urethra.
Statistical analyses
Continuous data were subjected to the Wilcoxon rank sum test, while the Chi‐squared test was used for categorical data. Continence recovery rate curves were plotted. We used the Kaplan–Meier method to plot continence recovery rate curves, with comparisons using the log‐rank test. The correlation between clinical parameters and continence recovery was examined using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models, with median values used to determine cut‐offs for age, BMI, and resected prostatic volume. The cut‐off value for PUL was determined by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. All statistical analyses were performed using the JMP Pro version 16.0.0 software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA), with a p‐value of 0.05 considered to represent a significant difference.
RESULTS
Characteristics and perioperative findings of the 195 patients enrolled in the study are summarized in Table 1. Of these patients, 21, 107, and 67 patients had bilateral, unilateral, and non‐NVB‐sparing operations, respectively, and 147, 29, and 19 patients had bilateral, unilateral, and non‐fascia‐sparing operations, respectively. In addition, 156, 28, and 11 patients had bilateral, unilateral, and non‐puboprostatic ligament‐sparing operations, respectively. The median PUL was 27 mm. The median postoperative follow‐up period was 381 days (interquartile range, 292–528 days). Table 2 shows a summary of oncological data and postoperative recurrence. An ROC curve determined the cut‐off value for PUL as 26 mm (Figure S1).
TABLE 1.
Characteristics and perioperative parameters of the patients.
| All | PUL ≥ 26 mm | PUL < 26 mm | p‐Value | NVB (+) | NVB (−) | p‐Value | PUL ≥ 26 mm and NVB (+) | PUL < 26 mm or NVB (−) | p‐Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 195 | n = 110 | n = 85 | n = 128 | n = 67 | n = 74 | n = 121 | ||||
| Age, years, median (IQR) | 69 (63–73) | 68 (63–73) | 69 (63–73.5) | 0.60 | 68 (63–73) | 71 (65–74) | 0.071 | 68 (63–73) | 70 (64–74) | 0.21 |
| BMI, median (IQR) | 24.2 (22.8–26.3) | 24.1 (22.9–26.2) | 24.2 (22.3–26.3) | 0.61 | 23.9 (22.7–26.1) | 24.5 (22.8–26.5) | 0.24 | 23.9 (22.9–26.2) | 24.2 (22.4–26.4) | 0.72 |
| Preoperative PSA, ng/mL, median (IQR) | 7.3 (5.6–11.7) | 7.9 (6.0–15.2) | 7.9 (6.0–15.2) | 0.022 | 7.0 (5.2–10.1) | 8.3 (6.0–17.4) | 0.011 | 6.6 (4.7–9.6) | 7.9 (5.9–14.3) | 0.010 |
| Resected prostate weight, g, median (IQR) | 39.3 (32.1–48.8) | 40.2 (34.6–51.7) | 37.5 (28.8–45.3) | 0.022 | 39.2 (32–50.1) | 39.4 (34.1–46.3) | 1.00 | 40.3 (33.9–51.8) | 38.9 (30.2–46.4) | 0.37 |
| Operative time, min, median (IQR) | 177 (141–172) | 170 (143–211) | 196 (151–230) | 0.0029 | 171 (141–212) | 180 (149–235) | 0.073 | 157 (134–205) | 184 (149–229) | 0.0009 |
| Console time, min, median (IQR) | 129 (103–172) | 120 (97–168) | 145 (109–185) | 0.0033 | 120 (97.3–164.8) | 140 (108–198) | 0.052 | 113 (93–153) | 142 (108–185) | 0.0007 |
| Bleeding loss, mL, median (IQR) | 200 (100–300) | 150 (100–300) | 200 (100–300) | 0.50 | 200 (100–300) | 200 (100–370) | 0.60 | 150 (100–250) | 200 (100–305) | 0.13 |
| NVB sparing (%) | Uni 107 (54.9) | Uni 53 (48.2) | Uni43 (50.6) | Uni107 (83.6) | No 67 (100) | Uni 64 (86.5) | Uni 43 (35.5) | < 0.0001 | ||
| Bil 21 (10.8) | Bil 9 (8.2) | Bil 11 (12.9) | 0.49 | <0.0001 | Bil 11 (9.1) | |||||
| No 67 (34.4) | No 23 (20.9) | No 31 (36.5) | Bil 21 (16.4) | Bil 10 (13.5) | No 67 (55.4) | |||||
| Endopelvic fascia sparing (%) | Uni 29 (14.9) | Uni 9 (8.2) | Uni 16 (18.8) | Uni22 (17.2) | Uni 7 (10.4) | <0.0001 | Uni 12 (16.2) | Uni 17 (14.0) | 0.0047 | |
| Bil 147 (75.4) | Bil 68 (61.2) | Bil 60 (70.6) | 0.34 | Bil 103 (80.5) | Bil 44 (65.7) | Bil 61 (82.4) | Bil 86 (71.1) | |||
| No 19 (9.7) | No 8 (7.3) | No 9 (10.6) | No 3 (2.3) | No 16 (23.9) | No 1 (1.4) | No 18 (14.9) | ||||
| Puboprostatic ligament‐sparing (%) | Uni 28 (14.4) | Uni 13 (11.8) | Uni 12 (14.1) | Uni 18 (14.0) | Uni 10 (14.9) | 0.0029 | Uni 12 (16.2) | Uni 18 (14.9) | 0.38 | |
| Bil 156 (80.0) | Bil 66 (60.0) | Bil 69 (81.2) | 0.92 | Bil 108 (84.4) | Bil 48 (6.0) | Bil 62 (83.8) | Bil 94 (77.7) | |||
| No 11 (5.6) | No 6 (2.7) | No 4 (4.7) | No 2 (1.6) | No 9 (13.4) | No 2 (2.7) | No 9 (7.4) | ||||
| PUL, mm, median (IQR) | 27 (24–32) | 30 (30–33.5) | 23.5 (22–25) | < 0.0001 | 28 (24–31.3) | 26 (22.5–31) | 0.49 | 30 (28–32.8) | 25 (22–28) | < 0.0001 |
Abbreviations: Bil, bilateral; BMI, body mass index; IQR, interquartile range; NVB, neurovascular bundle; PSA, prostate‐specific antigen; PUL, preserved urethral length; Uni, unilateral.
TABLE 2.
Pathological findings and postoperative recurrence.
| All patients | Patients with PUL ≥26 mm | Patients with PUL <26 mm | Patients with NVB (+) | Patients with NVB (−) | Patients with PUL ≥26 mm and NVB (+) | Patients with PUL <26 mm or NVB (−) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 195 | n = 110 | n = 85 | n = 128 | n = 67 | n = 74 | n = 121 | |
| Biopsy ISUP grade 1, n (%) | 18 (9.2) | 13 (11.8) | 5 (5.9) | 14 (10.9) | 4 (6.0) | 11 (14.9) | 7 (5.8) |
| Grade 2, n (%) | 54 (27.7) | 31 (28.2) | 23 (27.1) | 41 (32.0) | 13 (19.4) | 25 (33.8) | 29 (24.0) |
| Grade 3, n (%) | 42 (21.5) | 24 (21.8) | 18 (21.2) | 28 (21.9) | 14 (20.9) | 16 (21.6) | 26 (21.5) |
| Grade 4, n (%) | 39 (20.0) | 23 (20.9) | 16 (18.8) | 23 (18.0) | 16 (23.9) | 13 (17.6) | 26 (21.5) |
| Grade 5, n (%) | 42 (21.5) | 19 (17.3) | 23 (27.1) | 22 (17.2) | 20 (30.0) | 9 (12.2) | 33 (27.3) |
| Pathological T stage, n (%) | |||||||
| pT2a | 14 (7.2) | 7 (6.4) | 7 (8.2) | 13 (10.2) | 1 (1.5) | 7 (9.5) | 7 (5.8) |
| pT2b | 4 (2.1) | 3 (52.7) | 1 (1.2) | 3 (23.4) | 1 (1.5) | 2 (2.7) | 2 (9.5) |
| pT2c | 96 (49.2) | 58 (16.4) | 38 (44.7) | 70 (54.7) | 26 (38.8) | 52 (70.3) | 44 (36.4) |
| pT3a | 38 (19.5) | 18 (16.4) | 20 (23.5) | 19 (14.8) | 19 (28.4) | 29 (39.2) | 9 (7.4) |
| pT3b | 33 (16.9) | 20 (18.2) | 13 (15.3) | 18 (14.1) | 15 (22.4) | 23 (31.1) | 10 (8.3) |
| pT4 | 1 (0.5) | 0 | 1 (1.2) | 0 | 1 (1.5) | 1 (1.4) | 0 |
| pT2+ | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.9) | 0 | 1 (0.8) | 0 | 0 | 1 (0.8) |
| pT2a+ | 1 (0.5) | 0 | 1 (1.2) | 1 (0.8) | 0 | 1 (1.4) | 0 |
| pT2c+ | 2 (1.0) | 0 | 2 (2.4) | 1 (0.8) | 1 (1.5) | 2 (2.7) | 0 |
| ypT2a | 1 (1.0) | 1 (0.9) | 0 | 1 (0.8) | 0 | 0 | 1 (0.8) |
| ypT2c | 2(1.0) | 1 (0.9) | 1 (1.2) | 0 | 2 (3.0) | 2 (2.7) | 0 |
| pTX | 2(1.0) | 1 (0.9) | 1 (1.2) | 1 (0.8) | 1 (1.5) | 2 (2.7) | 0 |
| Positive surgical margins, n (%) | |||||||
| All stages, n (%) | 73 (37.4) | 40 (36.4) | 33 (38.8) | 31 (24.2) | 42 (62.7) | 24 (32.4) | 48 (39.7) |
| pT2, n (%) | 33 (16.9) | 19 (17.3) | 14 (16.5) | 10 (7.8) | 44 (65.7) | 52 (70.3) | 61 (50.4) |
| pT3, n (%) | 35 (17.9) | 20 (18.2) | 15 (17.6) | 21 (16.4) | 17 (25.4) | 19 (25.7) | 52 (43.0) |
| pT2+, n (%) | 4 (2.1) | 1 (0.9) | 3 (3.5) | 1 (0.8) | 2 (3.0) | 1 (1.4) | 3 (2.5) |
Abbreviations: ISUP, International Society of Urological Pathology; NVB, neurovascular bundle; PUL, preserved urethral length.
Age, BMI, NVB preservation, endopelvic fascia preservation, puboprostatic ligament preservation, PUL, and resected prostatic volume were examined in univariate and multivariate analyses using the Cox proportional hazards model. Among all patients, no significant difference in postoperative urinary continence recovery at 30, 60, 90, and 365 days after RARP was observed. Univariate and multivariate analyses of NVB preservation, endopelvic fascia preservation, puboprostatic ligament preservation, and PUL at 30 days after RARP were not evaluated as no events occurred (Table 3).
TABLE 3.
Cox proportional hazards model at 30, 60, 90, and 365 days postoperatively.
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30 days | 60 days | 90 days | 365 days | 30 days | 60 days | 90 days | 365 days | |||||||||||||||||
| HR | 95% CI | p Value | HR | 95% CI | p Value | HR | 95% CI | p Value | HR | 95% CI | p Value | HR | 95% CI | p Value | HR | 95% CI | p Value | HR | 95% CI | p Value | HR | 95% CI | p Value | |
| Age (≥69 vs. <69) | 1.1 | 0.34–3.6 | 0.87 | 0.68 | 0.37–1.26 | 0.22 | 0.84 | 0.51–1.39 | 0.5 | 0.96 | 0.70–1.31 | 0.8 | 1.00 | 0.30–3.36 | 0.99 | 0.72 | 0.38–1.35 | 0.3 | 0.83 | 0.50–1.39 | 0.48 | 1.02 | 0.74–1.42 | 0.9 |
| BMI (≥24.2 vs. <24.2) | 0.59 | 0.17–2.0 | 0.39 | 0.87 | 0.47–1.60 | 0.65 | 0.74 | 0.45–1.23 | 0.24 | 1.14 | 0.83–1.55 | 0.42 | 0.55 | 0.15–1.98 | 0.36 | 0.83 | 0.44–1.58 | 0.57 | 0.7 | 0.41–1.19 | 0.18 | 1.18 | 0.84–1.66 | 0.34 |
| Preservation of NVB (yes vs. no) | NE | NE | NE | 1.6 | 0.81–3.19 | 0.16 | 1.4 | 0.81–2.42 | 0.22 | 1.23 | 0.89–1.71 | 0.2 | NE | NE | NE | 1.73 | 0.79–3.80 | 0.16 | 1.4 | 0.76–2.61 | 0.27 | 1.24 | 0.86–1.77 | 0.24 |
| Preservation of endopelvic fascia (yes vs. no) | NE | NE | NE | 0.82 | 0.32–2.09 | 0.68 | 0.86 | 0.40–1.88 | 0.7 | 1.25 | 0.74–2.13 | 0.39 | NE | NE | NE | 0.65 | 0.22–1.95 | 0.46 | 0.76 | 0.31–1.88 | 0.56 | 1.03 | 0.56–1.89 | 0.91 |
| Preservation of puboprostatic ligament (yes vs. no) | NE | NE | NE | 0.79 | 0.69–2.55 | 0.7 | 1.19 | 0.37–3.78 | 0.77 | 1.3 | 0.66–2.54 | 0.43 | NE | NE | NE | 0.77 | 0.22–2.75 | 0.7 | 1.23 | 0.37–4.11 | 0.73 | 1.24 | 0.86–2.63 | 0.48 |
| PUL (≥26 vs. <26 mm) | NE | NE | NE | 1.5 | 0.80–2.81 | 0.2 | 1.52 | 0.91–2.57 | 0.11 | 1.24 | 0.91–1.70 | 0.17 | NE | NE | NE | 1.48 | 0.78–2.80 | 0.22 | 1.48 | 0.88–2.50 | 0.14 | 1.27 | 0.92–1.75 | 0.13 |
| Resected prostatic volume (≥39.3 vs. <39.3) | 1.2 | 0.37–4.0 | 0.75 | 1.14 | 0.62–2.09 | 0.67 | 1.37 | 0.83–2.26 | 0.22 | 1.02 | 0.75–1.39 | 0.91 | 1.38 | 0.41–4.66 | 0.60 | 1.07 | 0/57–2.03 | 0.82 | 1.4 | 0.82–2.39 | 0.21 | 0.99 | 0.71–1.38 | 0.95 |
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; NE, not evaluated; NVB, neurovascular bundle; PUL, preserved urethral length.
Kaplan–Meier curves for cumulative urinary continence rates showed significantly better recovery of urinary continence within 30 postoperative days in patients with a PUL ≥26 mm than in those with a PUL <26 mm (Figure 2a) and in patients with NVB preservation than in patients without NVB preservation (Figure 2b). However, significantly better urinary continence recovery within 30, 60, 90, and 365 postoperative days was observed in patients with a PUL ≥26 mm and NVB preservation than in patients without a PUL ≥26 mm or NVB preservation (Log‐rank test: p < 0.0001, p = 0.016, p = 0.020, p = 0.013, respectively) (Figure 3; Figure S6). The 1‐year urinary continence recovery rate after surgery was 87.3% for patients with a PUL ≥26 mm, 76.5% for patients with a PUL <26 mm, 86.1% for patients with NVB preservation, 84.4% for patients without NVB preservation, 90.6% for patients with a PUL ≥26 mm and NVB preservation, and 82.3% for patients with a PUL <26 mm or no NVB preservation (Figure 3; Figures S4 and S5). There was no significant difference between bilateral NVB preservation and unilateral NVB preservation in continence recovery rate (Figure S2). Among the cohort that does not include bilateral NVB preservation, there was no significant difference between the group with a PUL of ≥26 mm with unilateral NVB preservation and the other groups in continence recovery rate (Figure S3).
FIGURE 2.
(a) Continence recovery rate curves stratified by preserved urethral length (PUL) at postoperative day 30 were plotted using the Kaplan–Meier method. A PUL ≥26 mm was a statistically significant factor that influenced urinary continence recovery at 30 days after robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) (p = 0.0028). (b) Continence recovery rate curves stratified by neurovascular bundle (NVB) preservation at postoperative day 30 were plotted using the Kaplan–Meier method. NVB preservation was a statistically significant factor that influenced urinary continence recovery at 30 days after RARP (p = 0.014).
FIGURE 3.
(a) Urinary continence recovery rate curves stratified by preserved urethral length (PUL) and neurovascular bundle (NVB) preservation at 365 days after robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy was plotted using the Kaplan–Meier method. A PUL ≥26 mm and NVB preservation were statistically significant factors that influenced urinary continence recovery at 365 days after robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) (p < 0.013). (b) Urinary continence recovery rate curves stratified by PUL and/or NVB preservation at 365 days after RARP was plotted using the Kaplan–Meier method. Although there were no significant differences among the four groups, a PUL ≥26 mm and NVB preservation tended to have better urinary continence recovery rates than the other three groups (p = 0.094).
DISCUSSION
In this study, we found that patients with a PUL ≥26 mm and NVB preservation had significantly better urinary continence recovery rates at 30, 60, 90, and 365 days postoperatively compared with patients with a PUL <26 mm or no NVB preservation. Although there have been some studies in the past in which NVB preservation alone or urethral preservation alone significantly improved early postoperative continence, none of those studies showed significantly better continence recovery rates after 1 year. Our results suggest that preserving both the urethra and the NVB is important in achieving urinary continence recovery.
In the patient group in the current study, all patients had a median PUL of 27 mm because the urethra was preserved to be as long as possible. The median PUL in the previous study was 10.6 mm. 6 Although direct comparisons cannot be made because the measurement methods used in the current study were quantitative and those used in the previous study were semi‐quantitative, having a longer PUL requires actively preserving the urethra. Preoperative assessment of MUL using MRI has been reported as a possible predictor of postoperative urinary continence. 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 However, even if the native membranous urethra is considered long on MRI, surgical procedures may not be able to preserve the membranous urethra length. Therefore, we considered it more important to preserve a longer urethra during the procedure than to have a longer preoperative native MUL. Our previous study measured the PUL in RARP semiquantitatively. The study showed that patients with a PUL ≥16 mm had a significantly higher rate of recovery from urinary incontinence during the overall observation period. 6 In that previous study, the PUL varied greatly from one case to another. In another study, maximal preservation of the membranous urethra improved the continence recovery rate. 10 Although not investigated in the present study, MUL measured on cystourethrography images at the time of removal of the postoperative balloon catheter has been reported to be the most important factor in the recovery of postoperative continence after RARP, 14 , 15 consistent with our findings.
Preservation of the cavernous nerve of the penis has been reported as important not only to preserve male sexual function, but also in the postoperative recovery of urinary continence. Bilateral cavernous nerve preservation is associated with increased incidence of early postoperative continence recovery after radical prostatectomy compared to unilateral nerve preservation. 16 However, rather than nerve preservation itself, a reduction in thermal injury, increased preservation of tissue around the urethra and pelvic floor during nerve sparing, and meticulous apical dissection may improve urinary continence recovery. 16 , 17 Autonomic nerves from the inferior hypogastric plexus innervate the external and internal urethral sphincter and some of these autonomic fibers run within the NVBs posterolaterally, as revealed by immunohistochemistry of en bloc excised specimens of the fetal pelvis. 5 In addition, neuroanatomical studies suggest that NVB preservation may contribute to the preservation of the autonomic nerves to the urethral sphincter, thus, improving urinary continence recovery.
When attempting to extend the PUL, attention should be paid to preventing positive surgical margins (PSMs). We compared the PSM rate in pT2 cases to our previous study and other studies. The PSM rate in patients with pT2 or less was 16.9% for all patients, 16.5% for patients with a PUL <26 mm, and 17.3% for patients with a PUL ≥26 mm at our institution. In our previous study, the PSM rate in patients with pT2 or less was 25.0% for all patients, 26.3% for patients with a PUL <16 mm, and 19.4% for patients with a PUL ≥16 mm. Thus, the PSM rate was lower in this study compared with that in our previous study. Preservation of the membranous urethra as much as possible did not increase the PSM. Other studies reported a median PSM rate of 19.0% (range, 4.7%–23.2%) with RARP in patients with pT2 or less, 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 suggesting that preserving the urethra was unlikely to affect PSM. However, if a preoperative MRI of the prostate, prostate needle biopsy, or digital rectal examination suggests the presence of a tumor at the apex of the prostate, attention should be paid to avoid PSM. Although data are not shown, this study includes cases of PSM located far from the apex of the prostate, which should be kept in mind when considering the PSM rate.
Many surgical techniques have been reported for achieving urinary continence after surgery. Our institution is also an educational institution for residents, and it is necessary to achieve both improvements in treatment outcomes and reduction of complications, as well as training new surgeons. An effective surgical procedure that both new and experienced surgeons can perform and that can achieve urinary continence is required. In this study, nine surgeons, including residents, performed the RARP as an operator, and, based on the cases, showed an excellent recovery rate from urinary incontinence. We believe that our surgical method is “universally designed surgery,” which can achieve an excellent recovery rate from urinary incontinence regardless of the surgeon's previous surgical experience.
Our study has several limitations. First, there are limitations inherent to the limited sample size, and performing a prospective randomized study on the advantages and disadvantages of PUL is difficult ethically. Second, this study was conducted at a single‐center, and external validation using another data set is needed. Third, the force of cephalad retraction of the prostate with a third robotic arm may result in PUL measurement error. Finally, the influence of postsurgical pelvic floor training cannot be excluded.
Our results suggest that a significantly higher postoperative urinary continence recovery rate can be achieved in patients with a PUL ≥26 mm and NVB preservation after RARP.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Satoshi Ando: Investigation; writing—original draft; writing—review & editing; conceptualization; methodology. Toru Sugihara: Data curation; investigation. Shiro Hinotsu: Investigation; formal analysis. Hiroto Kishino: Writing—review & editing. Daichi Hirata: Writing—review & editing. Risako Watanabe: Writing—review & editing. Atsushi Yanase: Writing—review & editing. Hirotaka Yokoyama: Writing—review & editing. Hayato Hoshina: Writing—review & editing. Kaori Endo: Writing—review & editing. Jun Kamei: Writing—review & editing; supervision. Eiichiro Takaoka: Supervision; writing—review & editing. Tetsuya Fujimura: Writing—review & editing; conceptualization; supervision.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
No conflict of interest.
APPROVAL OF THE RESEARCH PROTOCOL BY AN INSTITUTIONAL REVIEWER BOARD
This study was approved by the Jichi Medical University Ethics Committee (approval number: A19‐199).
INFORMED CONSENT
Informed consent was taken in the opt‐out form.
REGISTRY AND THE REGISTRATION NO. OF THE STUDY/TRIAL
Not applicable.
ANIMAL STUDIES
Not applicable.
Supporting information
Figure S1.
Figure S2.
Figure S3.
Figure S4.
Figure S5.
Figure S6.
REFERENCES
- 1. Cancer registry and statistics. Cancer Information Service, National Cancer Center, Japan (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, National Cancer Registry).
- 2. Cancer Registry and Statistics. Cancer Information Service, National Cancer Center, Japan (Vital Statistics of Japan).
- 3. Pan LH, Lin MH, Pang ST, Wang J, Shih WM. Improvement of urinary incontinence, life impact, and depression and anxiety with modified pelvic floor muscle training after radical prostatectomy. Am J Mens Health. 2019;13:1557988319851618. 10.1177/1557988319851618 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Averbeck MA, Marcelissen T, Anding R, Rahnama'i MS, Sahai A, Tubaro A. How can we prevent postprostatectomy urinary incontinence by patient selection, and by preoperative, peroperative, and postoperative measures? International Consultation on Incontinence‐Research Society 2018. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019;38:S119–S126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Nyangoh Timoh K, Moszkowicz D, Creze M, Zaitouna M, Felber M, Lebacle C, et al. The male external urethral sphincter is autonomically innervated. Clin Anat. 2021;34:263–271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Ando S, Kamei J, Yamazaki M, Sugihara T, Kameda T, Fujisaki A, et al. Longer preserved urethral length in robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy significantly contributes to post‐operative urinary continence recovery. BJUI Compass. 2022;3:184–190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Coakley FV, Eberhardt S, Kattan MW, Wei DC, Scardino PT, Hricak H. Urinary continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy: relationship with membranous urethral length on preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol. 2002;168:1032–1035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. 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;187:945–950. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Mendoza PJ, Stern JM, Li AY, Jaffe W, Kovell R, Nguyen M, et al. Pelvic anatomy on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging can predict early continence after robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2011;25:51–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Ko YH, Huynh LM, See K, Lall C, Skarecky D, Ahlering TE. Impact of surgically maximized versus native membranous urethral length on 30‐day and long‐term pad‐free continence after robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy. Prostate Int. 2020;8:55–61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Kitamura K, China T, Kanayama M, Nagata M, Isotani S, Wakumoto Y, et al. Significant association between urethral length measured by magnetic resonance imaging and urinary continence recovery after robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy. Prostate Int. 2019;7:54–59. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Heesakkers J, Farag F, Bauer RM, Sandhu J, de Ridder D, Stenzl A. Pathophysiology and contributing factors in postprostatectomy incontinence: a review. Eur Urol. 2017;71:936–944. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Satake Y, Kaiho Y, Saito H, Yamada T, Kawamorita N, Yamashita S, et al. Estimated minimal residual membranous urethral length on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging can be a new predictor for continence after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2018;112:138–144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Haga N, Ogawa S, Yabe M, Akaihata H, Hata J, Sato Y, et al. Factors contributing to early recovery of urinary continence analyzed by pre‐ and postoperative pelvic anatomical features at robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2015;29:683–690. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Nakanishi Y, Matsumoto S, Okubo N, Tanabe K, Kataoka M, Yajima S, et al. Significance of postoperative membranous urethral length and position of vesicourethral anastomosis for short‐term continence recovery following robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BMC Urol. 2020;22:145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Nguyen LN, Head L, Witiuk K, Punjani N, Mallick R, Cnossen S, et al. The risks and benefits of cavernous neurovascular bundle sparing during radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Urol. 2017;198:760–769. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Michl U, Tennstedt P, Feldmeier L, Mandel P, Oh SJ, Ahyai S, et al. Nerve‐sparing surgery technique, not the preservation of the neurovascular bundles, leads to improved long‐term continence rates after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2016;69:584–589. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Ginzburg S, Nevers T, Staff I, Tortora J, Champagne A, Kesler SS, et al. Prostate cancer biochemical recurrence rates after robotic‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg. 2012;16:443–450. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Keller EX, Bachofner J, Britschgi AJ, Saba K, Mortezavi A, Kaufmann B, et al. Prognostic value of unifocal and multifocal positive surgical margins in a large series of robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2019;37:1837–1844. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Soeterik TFW, van Melick HHE, Dijksman LM, Stomps S, Witjes JA, van Basten JPA. Nerve sparing during robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy increases the risk of ipsilateral positive surgical margins. J Urol. 2020;204:91–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Tatsugami K, Yoshioka K, Shiroki R, Eto M, Yoshino Y, Tozawa K, et al. Reality of nerve sparing and surgical margins in surgeons' early experience with robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy in Japan. Int J Urol. 2017;24:191–196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Trabulsi EJ, Linden RA, Gomella LG, McGinnis DE, Strup SE, Lallas CD. The addition of robotic surgery to an established laparoscopic radical prostatectomy program: effect on positive surgical margins. Can J Urol. 2008;15:3994–3999. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Yamada Y, Teshima T, Fujimura T, Sato Y, Nakamura M, Niimi A, et al. Comparison of perioperative outcomes in elderly (age ≧ 75 years) vs. younger men undergoing robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy. PLoS One. 2020;15:1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Figure S1.
Figure S2.
Figure S3.
Figure S4.
Figure S5.
Figure S6.