Current results and patient selection for nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy
- PMID: 8521134
Current results and patient selection for nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy
Abstract
The anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy currently may be performed with low morbidity and mortality. The nerve-sparing aspect of the anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy has allowed preservation of potency in the majority of men with localized prostate cancer. Overall potency rates of up to 71% may be achieved without compromising the complete eradication of cancer. Prostate cancer control with nerve-sparing surgery is similar to that reported for the standard radical retropubic prostatectomy. Inaccurate clinical staging of prostate cancer and the inability to determine tumor involvement of the neurovascular bundle have made it difficult to decide with certainty preoperatively which patients should undergo preservation versus wide excision of the neurovascular bundle. Some of the controversies that may determine utility of nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy include the impact of prostate cancer capsular penetration and positive surgical margins on tumor progression and patient survival. The selection of the ideal patient who has clinically localized prostate cancer for nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy has been improved by using as guidelines such preoperative factors as serum prostate-specific antigen tumor grade and the presence of perineural invasion on biopsy, and by using tumor location and volume to help predict true pathological stage. Other preoperative studies including transrectal ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging are generally not helpful.
Similar articles
-
The New York University nerve sparing algorithm decreases the rate of positive surgical margins following radical retropubic prostatectomy.J Urol. 2003 Jun;169(6):2147-52. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000057496.49676.5a. J Urol. 2003. PMID: 12771737
-
Impact of nerve sparing technique on patient self-assessed outcomes after radical perineal prostatectomy.J Urol. 2007 Aug;178(2):488-92; discussion 492. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.100. Epub 2007 Jun 11. J Urol. 2007. PMID: 17561133
-
Oncological and functional results of antegrade radical retropubic prostatectomy for the treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer.Eur Urol. 2008 Mar;53(3):554-61. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.07.004. Epub 2007 Jul 16. Eur Urol. 2008. PMID: 17683854
-
Incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.J Urol. 1998 Aug;160(2):299-315. J Urol. 1998. PMID: 9679867 Review.
-
Radical prostatectomy, preservation of sexual function, cancer control. The controversy.Urol Clin North Am. 1987 Nov;14(4):663-73. Urol Clin North Am. 1987. PMID: 3314061 Review.
Cited by
-
Management of the complications of radical prostatectomy.Curr Urol Rep. 2007 May;8(3):197-202. doi: 10.1007/s11934-007-0006-8. Curr Urol Rep. 2007. PMID: 17459268 Review.
-
Interpositional Nerve Grafting of the Prostatic Plexus after Radical Prostatectomy.Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015 Aug 10;3(7):e452. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000000422. eCollection 2015 Jul. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015. PMID: 26301141 Free PMC article.
-
Perineural invasion is an independent predictor of biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after local treatment: a meta-analysis.Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 Aug 15;8(8):13267-74. eCollection 2015. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015. PMID: 26550252 Free PMC article.
-
Management of complications of prostate cancer treatment.CA Cancer J Clin. 2008 Jul-Aug;58(4):196-213. doi: 10.3322/CA.2008.0002. Epub 2008 May 23. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008. PMID: 18502900 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Matched comparison of outcomes following open and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy for high-risk patients.World J Urol. 2014 Dec;32(6):1411-6. doi: 10.1007/s00345-014-1270-0. Epub 2014 Mar 9. World J Urol. 2014. PMID: 24609219
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Medical