Erectile dysfunction associated with radical prostatectomy: appropriateness and methods to preserve potency


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Relevance. Erectile dysfunction (ED) associated with radical prostatectomy (RP) affects 25-75% of patients and has a significant negative impact on their quality of life Aim. To analyze the maintenance of erectile function after RP depending on the type of endoscopic access and nerve-sparing. Materials and methods. This retrospective study comprised 231 patients with localized prostate cancer, who underwent surgery between February 2015 and February 2016. Surgery was performed using one of three approaches: laparoscopic, extraperitoneoscopic or robot-assisted. Nerve-sparing surgery was chosen were based on the Briganti nomogram (low risk of extraprostatic extension), Partin’s table, and taking into account the patient’s desire to maintain EF. EF and the quality of life were evaluated using the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) questionnaire and the QoL (Quality of Life) scale. Results. Nerve-sparing RP was performed in 153 patients. Nerve-sparing RP did not differ significantly from non-nerve sparing RP with regard to operative time (p=0.064) and blood loss (p=0.073). According to the pathomorphological study, the prostatic capsule was intact, and surgical margins were negative in all cases. The incidence of significant ED and complete loss of erectile function was greater in patients after non-nerve sparing RP compared with nerve sparing RP [(5.0 (0-10.0) vs. 6.5 (0.8- 19,0) points according to the IIEF-5 scale, p=0.271)]; 96.2% versus 72.2% (p<0.001). Nerve-sparing RP had a statistically significant better effect on the quality of life: 1.63+1.16 points against 1.88+1.02 points (p=0.035). Conclusion. The best outcomes were observed in patients undergoing robot-assisted RP. Nerve-sparing RP resulted in a lower rate of ED. This advantage without compromising the completeness of resection allows us to consider nerve-sparing RP as an appropriate and validated modality of preventing erectile dysfunction in properly selected patients.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

E. V Shpot’

R.M. Fronshteyn Clinic of Urology, I.M. Sechenov First MSMU of Minzdrav of Russia (Sechenov University)

Email: shpot@inbox.ru
Dr.Med.Sci., Associate Professor at the Department of Urology of Sechenov University, Urologist at the R.M. Fronshteyn Clinic of Urology

D. V Chinenov

R.M. Fronshteyn Clinic of Urology, I.M. Sechenov First MSMU of Minzdrav of Russia (Sechenov University)

Email: chinenov_dv@mail.ru
Ph.D., Associate Prof. at the Department of Urology of Sechenov University, Urologist at the R.M. Fronshteyn Clinic of Urology

A. V Amosov

R.M. Fronshteyn Clinic of Urology, I.M. Sechenov First MSMU of Minzdrav of Russia (Sechenov University)

Dr.Med.Sci., Professor at the Department of Urology of Sechenov University, Urologist at the R.M. Fronshteyn Clinic of Urology

Ya. N Chernov

R.M. Fronshteyn Clinic of Urology, I.M. Sechenov First MSMU of Minzdrav of Russia (Sechenov University)

Ph.D. Student at the Department of Urology of Sechenov University, Urologist at the R.M. Fronshteyn Clinic of Urology

M. V Yurova

I.M. Sechenov First MSMU of Minzdrav of Russia (Sechenov University)

Email: yurova.m.vl@gmail.com
Sixth Year Student at the CIEP «Medicine of the Future»

Yu. V Lerner

I.M. Sechenov First MSMU of Minzdrav of Russia (Sechenov University)

Email: juhjalerner@rambler.ru
Teaching Assistant at the A.I. Strukov Department of Pathology

References

  1. Hatzimouratidis K.H. et al. EAU Guidelines on Male Sexual Dysfunction. In: EAU Guidelines, edition presented at the annual EAU Congress Munich 2016. ISBN 978-90-79754-98-4.
  2. Walsh P.C., Donker P.J. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol. 1982;128:492-497.
  3. Maratia S., Cedillo S., Rejas J. Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with breast cancer: a systematic and standardized comparison of available instruments using the EMPRO tool. Quality of Life Research. 2016;25(10):2467.
  4. Казаков А.С., Колонтарев К.Б., Пушкарь Д.Ю., Пасечник И.Н. Анестезиологическое обеспечение робот-ассистированной радикальной простатэктомии. Хирургия. 2015;2
  5. Каприн А.Д., Костин А.А., Филимонов В.Б. и соавт. Отдаленные результаты радикальной позадилоннойпростатэктомии. Российский медико-биологический вестник имени академика И.П. Павлова. 2015;1
  6. Глыбочко П.В., Аляев Ю.Г., Рапопорт Л.М., Безруков Е.А. и соавт. Хирургическая анатомия нервосберегающей робот-ассистированной радикальной простатэктомии. Медицинский вестник Башкортостана. 2017;12:3(69
  7. Xu Peng et al. Remarkable Pathologic Change in Advanced Prostate Cancer Patient Using Dendritic Cell-Cytokine-Induced Killer Combined Therapy: A Case Report. Clinical Genitourinary Cancer. 2015;13(Issue 5):379-383.
  8. Menon M., Shrivastava A., Tewari A. et al. Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J. Urol. 2002;168:945-949.
  9. Thompson J.E., Egger S., Bohm M. et al. Superior quality of life and improved surgical margins are achievable with robotic radical prostatectomy after a long learning curve: a prospective single-surgeon study of 1552 consecutive cases. Eur Urol. 2014;65:521-531.
  10. Mottet N., Bellmunt J., Bolla M. et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):618-629.
  11. Mottet N., Bellmunt J., Briers E., van den Bergh R.C.N., Bolla M., van Casteren N.J. et al. Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. European Association of Urology, 2015.
  12. Ferlay J. et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J. Cancer. 2015;136: E359.
  13. Hatzinger M., Hubmann R., Moll F., Sohn M. et al. The history of prostate cancer from the beginning to DaVinci. AktuelleUrol. 2012;43:228-230.
  14. Binder J., Kramer W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2001;87:408-410.
  15. Ficarra V., Novara G., Ahlering T.E., Costello A. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62:418-430.
  16. Heidenreich A., Bastian P.J., Bellmunt J. et al. guidelines on prostate EAU, Part II: cancer. treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;65:467-479.
  17. Walsh P.C., Lepor H., Eggleston J.C. et al. Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations. Prostate. 1983;4(5):473-485.
  18. Salomon L., Saint F., Anastasiadis A.G. et al. Combined reporting of cancer control and functional results of radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2003;44(6):656-660.
  19. Epstein J.I., Egevad L., Amin M.B., Delahunt B., Srigley J.R., Humphrey P.A., Grading Committee. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. Am J. Surg Pathol. 2016;40(2):244-252.
  20. Sankar A., Johnson S.R., Beattie W.S., Tait G., Wijeysundera D.N. Reliability of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status scale in clinical practice. Myles PS, ed. BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2014;113(3):424-432.
  21. Carlsson S., Jaderling F., Wallerstedtet A. al. Oncologic and functional outcomes one year after radical prostatectomy for very low risk prostate cancer. Results from the prospective LAPPRO trial. BJU Int. 2016;118(2):205-212.
  22. Eifler J.B., Feng Z., Lin B.M.,et al. An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011. BJU Int. 2013;111:22-29.
  23. Schoots I.G. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2015;67:627.
  24. Bianchi L., Gandaglia G., Fossati N. et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer: indications, extent and tailored approaches. Urologia. 2017;84(1):9-19.
  25. Briganti A., Larcher A., Abdollah F. et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol. 2012;61(3):480-407.
  26. Mandel P., Kretschmer A., Chandrasekar T. et al. The effect of BMI on clinicopathologic and functional outcomes after open radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2014;32:297-302.
  27. Michl U., Tennstedt P., Feldmeier L. 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.
  28. Burkhard F.C. (Chair), Lucas M.G., Berghmans L.C. et al. EAU Guidelines on Urinary Incontinence in Adults. European Association of Urology 2016.
  29. Student V., Vidlar A., Grepl M., et al. Advanced Reconstruction of Vesicourethral Support (ARVUS) during Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: One-year Functional Outcomes in a Two-group Randomised Controlled Trial. Eur Urol. 2017;71(5):822-830.
  30. Castiglione F., Ralph D.J., Muneer A. Surgical Techniques for Managing Post-prostatectomy Erectile Dysfunction. Current Urology Reports. 2017;18(11):90.
  31. Wei J., Dunn R., Litwin M., Sandler H., Sanda M. Development and Validation of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) for Comprehensive Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life in Men with Prostate Cancer. Urology. 2000;56:899-905.
  32. Lu-Yao G.L., Albertsen P.C., Moore D.F. et al. Fifteen-year outcomes following conservative management among men aged 65 years or older with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015; 68:805-811.
  33. Rees T., Raison N., Sheikh M.I. et al. Is extended pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer the only recommended option? A systematic over-view of the literature. Turkish J. Urol. 2016;42(4):240-246.
  34. Retel V.P., Bouchardy C., Usel M. et al. Determinants and effects of positive surgical margins after prostatectomy on prostate cancer mortality: a population-based study. BMC Urology. 2014;14:86.
  35. Izard J.P., True L.D., May P. et al. Prostate cancer that is within 0.1 mm of the surgical margin of a radical prostatectomy predicts greater likelihood of recurrence. Am J. Surg Pathol. 2014;38(3):333-338.
  36. Kojima Y., Hamakawa T., Kubota Y., Ogawa S., Haga N., Tozawa K. et al. Bladder neck sling suspension during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy to improve early return of urinary continence: A comparative analysis. Urology. 2014;83:632-639.
  37. Haga N., Hata J., Matsuoka K. et al. The impact of nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy on lower urinary tract function: Prospective assessment of patient-reported outcomes and frequency volume charts. Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2017;9999:1-9.
  38. Haga N., Takinami R., Tanji R. et al. Comprehensive approach for post-prostatectomy incontinence in the era of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Fukushima Journal of Medical Science. 2017.
  39. Limoncin E., Gravina G.L., Corona G. et al. Erectile function recovery in men treated with phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor administration after bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: a systematic review of placebo-controlled randomized trials with trial sequential analysis. Andrology. 2017;5:863-872.
  40. Pan X.W., Cui X.M., Teng J.F. et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy vs. open retropubic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Indian J. Surg. 2015;77:1326-1333.
  41. Mandel P., Preisser F., Graefen M. et al. High chance of late recovery of urinary and erectile function beyond 12 months after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2017;71:848-850.
  42. Kimura M., Shimura S., Tai T., Kobayashi H., Baba S., Kano M., Nagao K. A web-based survey of Erection Hardness Score and its relationship to aging, sexual behavior, confidence, and risk factors in Japan. Sex Med. 2013;1:76-86.
  43. Williams S.B., Morales B.E., Huynh L.M. et al. Analysis of Accessory Pudendal Artery Transection on Erections During Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy. J. Endourol.
  44. Bianchi R., Cozzi G., Petralia G. et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and frozen-section analysis efficiently predict upgrading, upstaging, and extraprostatic extension in patients undergoing nerve-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:e4519.
  45. Ficarra V., Novara G., Rosen R.C. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62:405-417.
  46. Salonia A. et al. Prevention and management of postprostatectomy sexual dysfunctions. Part 1: choosing the right patient at the right time for the right surgery. Eur Urol. 2012; 62:261.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies