Optimizing Nerve Sparing in Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Comparative Investigation of Traditional and Modified Endopelvic Fascia Preservation Techniques.

Abstract

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common cancer and the sixth leading cause of cancer-related mortality in men. In 2000, Abbou performed the first robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, and radical prostatectomy has developed rapidly. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a valuable therapeutic option for the management of localized Pca.

Objective: To present the functional outcome of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using traditional and modified endopelvic fascia preservation methods in a single center in Vietnam.

Methods: We prospectively analyzed a series of 65 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2020 to 2023. All of those were operated by DaVinci Si system robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Twenties patients were applied with a modified nerve-sparing technique, intrafascial dissection, and lateral prostatic fascia preservation, leaving the lateral tissue, including the neurovascular bundle, untouched and covered. We used the traditional approach, intrafascial nerve-sparing with open endopelvic fascia and lateral prostatic fascia in 45 cases. Patients were followed up to 12 months to assess the continence and erectile function by using IIEF-5 and EPIC questionnaires.

Results: The study sample included 65 cases; the mean patient age was 64.21 ± 6.68, erection rate after surgery at six months in bilateral NS was 36.58% (15/41) in the traditional group, and 68.42% (13/19) in the modified group (p=0.028). The patient did not recover erectile ability in the group of elderly patients (>65 years old) and unilateral nerve-sparing group. The continence rate six months after surgery was 86.66 % in the conventional group and 85% in the modified group, with no significant difference between the two groups. In the potency group, the IIEF-5 score was 13 ± 4.9, and the EPIC-26 score was 62.20 ± 10.04. Erectile ability in the modified group was better than the traditional group at six months after surgery.

Conclusion: Our results showed better potency recovery in the modified group. These results should be tested in future research with randomized studies.