Nerve-sparing approach during radical prostatectomy is strongly associated with the rate of postoperative urinary continence recovery
Article first published online: 21 JUN 2012
© 2012 The Authors. BJU International © 2012 BJU International
Volume 111, Issue 5, pages 717–722, May 2013
How to Cite
Suardi, N., Moschini, M., Gallina, A., Gandaglia, G., Abdollah, F., Capitanio, U., Bianchi, M., Tutolo, M., Passoni, N., Salonia, A., Hedlund, P., Rigatti, P., Montorsi, F. and Briganti, A. (2013), Nerve-sparing approach during radical prostatectomy is strongly associated with the rate of postoperative urinary continence recovery. BJU International, 111: 717–722. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11315.x
- Issue published online: 12 APR 2013
- Article first published online: 21 JUN 2012
- prostate cancer;
- radical prostatectomy;
- urinary continence
What's known on the subject? and What does the study add?
- Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction are the most bothersome sequelae affecting health-related quality of life in patients treated with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. While it has been widely reported that a nerve-sparing approach significantly improves postoperative erectile function, the impact of neurovascular bundle preservation on urinary continence recovery is still a matter of controversy.
- Our study clearly demonstrates that patients treated with nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy have higher chances of recovering full continence after surgery. The results indicate that, when technically and oncologically feasible, an attempt at a nerve-sparing approach should be planned in order to increase the probability of achieving full continence after radical prostatectomy.
- To demonstrate that nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (NSRP) is associated with higher rates of urinary continence (UC) recovery compared with non-nerve-sparing procedures in patients with surgically treated organ-confined prostate cancer.
Patients and Methods
- The study included 1249 patients treated with radical prostatectomy between 2003 and 2010. Patients were divided into three preoperative risk groups: low (PSA < 10 ng/mL, cT1, biopsy Gleason sum ≤6), high (cT3 or biopsy Gleason 8–10 or PSA > 20 ng/mL) and intermediate (all the remaining).
- Postoperative UC recovery was defined as the absence of any protection device.
- The association between nerve-sparing status and UC recovery was assessed in univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses after accounting for age at surgery, Charlson Comorbidity Index and preoperative risk group.
- At a mean follow-up of 42.2 months (range 1–78), 993 patients (79.5%) recovered UC. Overall, UC recovery rate at 1 and 2 years was 76% and 79%, respectively.
- On univariable Cox regression analysis, age at surgery, preoperative risk group, medical comorbidities and nerve-sparing status were significantly associated with UC recovery (all P ≤ 0.001).
- On multivariable analysis, age, risk group and nerve-sparing status were also independently associated with UC recovery (all P < 0.003). Patients treated with bilateral NSRP had a 1.8-fold higher chance of full UC recovery.
- Patients treated with bilateral NSRP have significantly higher chances of recovering full continence.
- Therefore, when oncologically and technically feasible, a nerve-sparing procedure should be attempted.