The influence of secondary resection using NeuroSAFE-technique on sexual function in unilateral nerve-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v58.6234Keywords:
Sexual function outcome, nerve-sparing, secondary resection, surgical approach, NeuroSAFEtechnique, prostate cancer, robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, EPIC-26Abstract
Objective: To demonstrate the surgical influence of secondary resection on sexual function in finally unilateral nerve-sparing robot- assisted laparoscopic prostatectomies (RALPs) performed with the ‘neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination’ (NeuroSAFE) technique by prospectively collecting EPIC-26-questionnaires.
Material & methods: Sexual function status measured by the sexual-symptom-score (SexSS) in the EPIC-26-questionnaires was collected preoperatively and 12 months after RALP from 378 patients between 09/2019 and 04/2021. Cohorts of interest were defined as those patients undergoing unilateral nerve-sparing by secondary resection of the other neurovascular bundle (NVB), and as those patients undergoing primarily planned and successful unilateral nerve-sparing (unilateral nerve-sparing without secondary resection) in ≤cT2 prostate cancer. NeuroSAFE frozen section technique was performed in all nerve-sparing RALPs, and in case of cancer-positive surgical margins, the complete NVB was resected.
Results: In 109 RALPs with unilateral nerve-sparing (48 primarily vs. 61 by secondary resection), analyses showed a significant difference in postoperative SexSS for ‘unilateral nerve-sparing by secondary resection’ compared with ‘unilateral nerve-sparing without secondary resection’ (43 [interquartile range (IQR): 14;50] vs. 26 [IQR: 22;62], P = 0.04). In multivariable analyses, the preoperative SexSS was predictive for postoperative erectile dysfunction (OR = 0.96, 95% confidence interval: 0.93–0.98, P < 0.001). Oncological safety was not compromised by secondary resection (prostate-specific antigen after 12 months 0.01 ng/mL vs. 0.01 ng/mL [P = 0.3] for unilateral nerve-sparing by secondary resection vs. unilateral nerve-sparing without secondary resection).
Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that nerve-sparing attempts applying the NeuroSAFEtechnique should be generously performed since a unilateral complete secondary resection leading to a unilateral nerve-sparing RALP did not seem to have a negative influence on sexual function and did not seem to compromise oncological safety compared with primarily performed and successful unilateral nerve-sparing RALP.
Downloads
References
Walsh PC, Mostwin JL. Radical prostatectomy and cystoprostatectomy with preservation of potency. Results using a new nerve-sparing technique. Br J Urol. 1984;56(6):694–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.1984.tb06149.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.1984.tb06149.x
Eichelberg C, Erbersdobler A, Haese A, et al. Frozen section for the management of intraoperatively detected palpable tumor lesions during nerve-sparing scheduled radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2006;49(6):1011–6; discussion 1016–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.02.035 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.02.035
Fosså SD, Beyer B, Dahl AA, et al. Improved patient-reported functional outcomes after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy by using NeuroSAFE technique. Scand J Urol. 2019;53(6):385–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2019.1693625 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2019.1693625
Schlomm T, Tennstedt P, Huxhold C, et al. Neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) increases nerve-sparing frequency and reduces positive surgical margins in open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience after 11,069 consecutive patients. Eur Urol. 2012;62(2):333–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.04.057 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.04.057
van der Slot MA, den Bakker MA, Tan TSC, et al. NeuroSAFE in radical prostatectomy increases the rate of nerve-sparing surgery without affecting oncological outcome. BJU Int. 2022;130(5):628–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15771 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15771
Beyer B, Schlomm T, Tennstedt P, et al. A feasible and time-efficient adaptation of NeuroSAFE for da Vinci robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2014;66(1):138–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.014
Dinneen EP, Van Der Slot M, Adasonla K, et al. Intraoperative frozen section for margin evaluation during radical prostatectomy: a systematic review. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;15;6(4):664–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2019.11.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2019.11.009
Hedgepeth RC, Labo J, Zhang L, et al. Expanded prostate cancer index composite versus incontinence symptom index and sexual health inventory for men to measure functional outcomes after prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009;182(1):221–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.02.155 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.02.155
Martin NE, Massey L, Stowell C, et al. Defining a standard set of patient-centered outcomes for men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;67(3):460–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.075 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.016
Kowalski C, Ferencz J, Albers P, et al. Quality assessment in prostate cancer centers certified by the German Cancer Society. World J Urol. 2016;34(5):655–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1688-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1688-z
Kowalski C, Hein R, Carl G, et al. A multicenter paper-based and web-based system for collecting patient-reported outcome measures in patients undergoing local treatment for prostate cancer: First experiences. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020;13;4(1):56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-020-00224-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-020-00224-7
Mottet N, Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, et al. EAU guidelines prostate cancer. In: Edn. Presented at the EAU Annual Congress Milan 2021. Arnhem: EAU Guidelines Office; 2021. Available from: http://uroweb.org/guidelines/compilations-of-all-guidelines/ [cited 13 August 2021].
Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF): S3-Leitlinie Prostatakarzinom, Langversion 6.0, 2021. Available from: http://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/leitlinien/prostatakarzinom/ [cited 13 August 2021].
Rocco F, Gadda F, Acquati P, et al. Personal research: reconstruction of the urethral striated sphincter. Archivio italiano di urologia, andrologia: organo ufficiale (di) Societa italiana di ecografia urologica e nefrologica. 2001;73:127–37.
Budäus L, Isbarn H, Schlomm T, et al. Current technique of open intrafascial nerve-sparing retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2011;60(2): 320–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.05.044 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.05.044
Sanda MG, Wei JT, Litwin MS. Scoring instructions for the expanded prostate cancer index composite short form (EPIC-26). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan; 2002.
Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika. 1965;52(3/4):591–611. https://doi.org/10.2307/2333709 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591
Hosmer Jr DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med. 2008;20;358(12):1250–61. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa074311 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa074311
Reichert M, Strauß A, Voß JW, et al. Surgical approach affecting long-term urinary continence status after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy prospectively evaluated using self-reported functional status (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, EPIC-26). Current Urol. 2022;10–1097. https://doi.org/10.1097/CU9.0000000000000190 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CU9.0000000000000190
Holm HV, Fosså SD, Hedlund H, et al. How should continence and incontinence after radical prostatectomy be evaluated? A prospective study of patient ratings and changes with time. J Urol. 2014;192(4):1155–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.113 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.113
Salonia A, Burnett AL, Graefen M, 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(2):261–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.04.046 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.04.046
Capogrosso P, Vertosick EA, Benfante NE, et al. Are we improving erectile function recovery after radical prostatectomy? Analysis of patients treated over the last decade. Eur Urol. 2019;75(2):221–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.039 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.039
Wang X, Wu Y, Guo J, et al. Intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy improves patients’ postoperative continence recovery and erectile function: a pooled analysis based on available literatures. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(29):e11297. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000011297 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000011297
Savera AT, Kaul S, Badani K, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy with the “Veil of Aphrodite” technique: histologic evidence of enhanced nerve sparing. Eur Urol. 2006;49(6):1065–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.02.050 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.02.050
Wang X, Wu Y, Guo J, et al. Oncological safety of intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy compared with conventional process: a pooled review and meta-regression analysis based on available studies. BMC Urol. 201927;19(1):41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-019-0476-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-019-0476-2
Sighinolfi MC, Eissa A, Spandri V, et al. Positive surgical margin during radical prostatectomy: overview of sampling methods for frozen sections and techniques for the secondary resection of the neurovascular bundles. BJU Int. 2020;125(5):656–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15024
Mirmilstein G, Rai BP, Gbolahan O, et al. The neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) approach to nerve sparing in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a British setting – a prospective observational comparative study. BJU Int. 2018;121(6):854–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14078 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14078
Dinneen E, Haider A, Grierson J, et al. NeuroSAFE frozen section during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: peri-operative and histopathological outcomes from the NeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility randomized controlled trial. BJU Int. 2021;127(6):676–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15256 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15256
Preisser F, Theissen L, Wild P, et al. Implementation of intraoperative frozen section during radical prostatectomy: short-term results from a German Tertiary-care Center. Eur Urol Focus. 2021;7(1):95–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2019.03.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2019.03.007
von Bodman C, Brock M, Roghmann F, et al. Intraoperative frozen section of the prostate decreases positive margin rate while ensuring nerve sparing procedure during radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2013;190(2):515–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.011
Skolarus TA, Dunn RL, Sanda MG, et al. Minimally important difference for the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form. Urology 2015;85(1):101–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.08.044 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.08.044
Salonia A, Burnett AL, Graefen M, et al. Prevention and management of postprostatectomy sexual dysfunctions part 2: recovery and preservation of erectile function, sexual desire, and orgasmic function. Eur Urol. 2012;62(2):273–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.04.047 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.04.047
Basal S, Wambi C, Acikel C, et al. Optimal strategy for penile rehabilitation after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy based on preoperative erectile function. BJU Int. 2013;111(4):658–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11487.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11487.x
Michl U, Tennstedt P, Felmeier L, et al. Nerve-sparing surgery technique, not the preservation of the neruvascular bundles, leads to improved long-term continence rates after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2016;69:583–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.037 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.037
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Mirjam Naomi Mohr, Annemarie Uhlig; Hannah Maria Ploeger; Oliver Hahn, Lutz Trojan, Mathias Reichert
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Acta Chirurgica Scandinavica Society owns the copyright for all material published until Volume 57 (2023) unless otherwise specified. As from Volume 59 (2024) all published articles, unless otherwise specified, are published under CC-BY licences, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for non-commercial purposes, provided proper attribution to the original work.
