ANATOMY - SPARING LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY… IS IT POSSIBLE?

The fact is that nerve- and fascial-sparing robot-assisted technique improves functional results of radical prostatectomy.
The aim of study: to evaluate feasibility and effectiveness of anatomy-sparing radical prostatectomy performed by conventional laparoscopy.
Material and methods: A total of 4025 patients with prostate cancer who underwent conventional lap radical prostatectomy (LRP) between 2010 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. After that only cases of anatomy-sparing technique were enrolled. The perioperative parameters of these 714 men were analyzed. Continence was defined by “Pad-test” 1 or none.
Results: There were no mortality, intra- and Clavien ≥ III postoperative complications i.q. conversions to open surgery. Average OR time & EBL – 155,3 min & 187,2 ml respectively. Mean time of bladder catheterization – 7,4 d. The frequency of positive surgical margins – 9,7%. Immediate and absolute continence has been reached in 38,2% of cases. In the other 42,3% of patients the “Pad-test” was not more than one. Thus 80,5% of our patients were satisfied with urination after surgery. Conclusions: conventional laparoscopic surgical technique described in this paper is not only feasible effective and safe but also achieve a better functional result.

1. Состояние онкологический помощи населению России в 2018 году / Под ред. А.Д. Каприна, В.В. Старинского, Г.В. Петровой. - М.: МНИОИ им. П.А. Герцена - филиал ФГБУ «НМИЦ радиологии» Минздрава России, 2019 г. – 236 с.

2. Аполихин, О. И. и др. Состояние и прогнозы заболеваемостивзрослого населения Нижегородской области болезнями мочеполовой системы //Экспериментальная и клиническая урология. – 2012. – №. 4. – С. 4-7.

3. Попов С.В. и др. Прогностическое значение простатоспецифического антигена при определении показаний к первичной биопсии предстательной железы. Урология. 2018;3:92–97. DOI: 10.18565/urology.2018.3.92-97.

4. Попов С.В. и др. Место магнитно-резонансной трактографии в диагностике рака предстательной железы. Первый российский опыт. Экспериментальная и клиническая урология 2019;(3):54-58. DOI: 10.29188/2222-8543-2019-11-3-54-58.

5. Кочкин А. Д. и др. Эндоскопическая экстраперитонеальная радикальная простатэктомия после различных биполярных трансуретральных вмешательств у больных с ожирением // Эндоскопическая хирургия. – 2013. – Т. 19. – №. 6. – С. 23-26.

6. Раснер П.И., Котенко Д.В., Колонтарев К.Б., Пушкарь Д.Ю. Сравнительный анализ функциональных результатов радикальной позадилонной и робот-ассистированной простатэктомии у больных локализованным раком предстательной железы. Экспериментальная и клиническая урология. 2014. №4.

7. Хирургическая анатомия простаты: учебное пособие / под ред. А.Д. Кочкина. – Н. Новгород: издательство Нижегородской государственной медицинской академии, 2017. -72с., ил. ISBN 978-57032-1205-9.

8. Patel VR., Sivaraman A., Coelho RF., Chauhan S., Palmer KJ., Orvieto MA., Camacho I., Coughlin G., Rocco B. Pentafecta: A new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2011. 59:5; 702-707.

9. Asimakopoulos A., Miano R., Galfano A., Bocciardi M., Vespasiani G., Spera E., Gaston R. Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Critical Appraisal of the Anatomic Landmarks for a Complete Intrafascial Approach. Clinical Anatomy. 2015. 28:896 – 902.

10. Ficarra V., Novara G., Fracalanza S., et al. Aprospective, nonrandomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution. BJU Int. 2009. 104: 534 – 9.

11. Coelho RF., Chauhan H., Palmer KJ., Rocco B., Patel MB., Patel VR. Robotic-assisted radical рrostatectomy: a review of current outcomes. BJU Int. 2009. 104:1428 – 35.

12. Asimakopoulos A., Annino F., D’Orazio A., Fraga C., Pereira T., Mugnier C., Hoepffner J-L., Piechaud T., Gaston R. Complete Periprostatic Anatomy Preservation During Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy (RALP): The New Pubovesical Complex-Sparing Technique. European Urology. 2010. 58: 407 – 417.

13. Licht MR., Klein EA., Tuason L., Levin H. Impact of bladder neck preservation during radical prostatectomy on continence and cancer control. Urology. 1994. 44: 883 – 7.

14. Jenkins LC., Nogueira M., Wilding GE et al. Median lobe in robotassisted radical prostatectomy: evaluation and management. Urology. 2008. 71:810 – 3.

15. AsimakopoulosA., Mugnier C., Hoepffner J-L., Piechaud T., Gaston R. Bladder neck preservation during minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: a standardised technique using a lateral approach. BJU Int. 2012. 110: 1566 – 1571.

16. Кочкин А.Д. и др. Лапароскопическая радикальная простатэктомия и максимальное сохранение перипростатической анатомии. Вопросы урологии и андрологии. 2017; 5(1): 34–38. DOI: 10.20953/2307-6631-2017-1-34-38.

17. Луцевич О.Э., Галлямов Э.А., Забродина Н.Б., Преснов К.С., Новиков А.Б. Использование лапароскопического и внебрюшинного доступа при эндовидеохирургической радикальной простатэктомии: анализ 300 случаев // Эндохирургия сегодня. - 2012 - № 2 - С. 33-41.

18. Kessler TM., Burkhard FC., Studer UE. Nerve-sparing open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2007. 51:90 – 7.

19. Myers RP. Detrusor apron, associated vascular plexus, and avascular plane: relevance to radical retropubic prostatectomy-anatomic and surgical commentary. Urology. 2002. 59:472 – 9.

20. Watz J., Burnett AL., Costello AJ et al. A critical analysis of the current knowledge of surgical anatomy related to optimization of cancer control and preservation of continence and erection in candidates for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2010. 57:179 – 92.

21. Walz J., Epstein J., Ganzer R., Graefen M., Guazzoni G., Kaouk J., Menon M., Mottrie A., Myers R., Patel V., Tewari A., Villers A., Artibani W. A Critical Analysis of the Current Knowledge of Surgical Anatomy of the Prostate Related to Optimisation of Cancer Control and Preservation of Continence and Erection in Candidates for Radical Prostatectomy: An Update. Eur Urol. 2016. 6626;1- 11

22. Stolzenburg JU., Liatsikos EN., Rabenalt R. et al. Nerve sparing endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy - effect of puboprostatic ligament preservation on early continence and positive margins. Eur Urol. 2006. 49:103 – 12.

23. Stolzenburg JU., Kallidonis P., Do M., et al. A comparison of outcomes for interfascial and intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2010. 76:743 – 8.

24. Wimpissinger TF., Tschabitscher M., Feichtinger H., Stackl W. Surgical anatomy of the puboprostatic complex with special reference to radical perineal prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2003. 92:681 – 4.

25. Patel VR., Coelho RF., Palmer KJ., Rocco B. Periurethral suspension stitch during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of the technique and continence outcomes. Eur Urol. 2009. 56: 472 – 8.

26. Papatsoris A., Mandron E. Anterior suspension of the dorsal vein complex and fixation of the anterior fibromuscular stroma during laparoscopic prostatectomy for facilitating early continence. BJU Int. 2009. 104:1542 – 6.

27. Villers A., Lemaitre L., Haffner J., Puech P. Current status of MRI for the diagnosis, staging and prognosis of prostate cancer: implications for focal therapy and active surveillance. Curr Opin Urol. 2009. 19:274 – 82.

28. Katz R., Salomon L., Hoznek A., de la Taille A., Antiphon P., Abbou CC. Positive surgical margins in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the impact of apical dissection, bladder neck remodeling and nerve preservation. J Urol. 2003. 169:2049 – 52.