Materials and Methods: Sixty-five patients were operated using ST, and 61 patients with CT. The oncological and functional results of the two techniques were compared.
Results: The continence rates at 1st and 6th months after catheter removal were 59.0% and 90.2% in the CT, and 36.9% and 87.6% in the ST groups, respectively (p=0.02, and p=0.78). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of detection rates of surgical margin positivity (p=0.54). In multivariable logistic regression analysis only the choice of the surgical technique was found to be statistically significantly correlated with the continence rate at the first month after the catheter removal (p=0.023).
Conclusion: The CT is a surgical technique, which can be used safely in the Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy (RALP) procedure, with relatively higher early-term continence rates and oncologic outcomes comparable to the standard technique.
Over the years, thanks to the better definition of deep dorsal venous complex, puboprostatic ligaments, prostate shape and sphincter anatomy, RP techniques developed and contributed favorably to oncological and functional results [4-6]. In spite of the improvement in surgical techniques, urinary incontinence after RP remains an important complication that adversely affects patients" quality of life. In a meta-analysis including 51 articles, incontinence rates of patients who underwent RALP were evaluated. According to this meta-analysis, in the studies in which no pad use was accepted as full continence, the mean rate of incontinence at postoperative 12th months was shown as 16% (4-31%). In other studies which defined full continence as either no urine leakage or usage of security pads, this rate dropped to 9% (8-11%) [7].
Consequently, the preservation of urinary continence is an important target in patients undergoing RP. Anatomical and functional studies have shown that the length of the functional urethra is between 1.5-2.4 cm, and a significant part of it is located intraprostatically between the prostate apex and the colliculus seminalis [8-11]. In 2011, it was shown that the continence rate in patients who underwent open RP with the full functional-length urethral (FFLU) sphincter preservation technique defined by Schlomm et al. was significantly higher in the first week after catheter removal compared to patients who did not undergo this surgical technique. However, no significant difference was found between these two techniques in terms of continence rates at 12 months after catheter removal. Even if long-term continence results are comparable, earlyterm continence is an important desirable outcome for patients with incontinence anxiety. FFLU technique aims to preserve the functional urethral length in the patient by maintaining the integrity of the intraprostatic part of the urethra, including the colliculus seminalis [12]. The "collar technique" (CT) described by the Bianchi L et al. is the adaptation of the FFLU technique to RALP. Before the collar technique was described in the literature, we were performing the RALP procedure in our clinic by applying almost the same technique and planning to describe this technique. However, after this demonstrative new technical article published by Bianchi L et al., we have just aimed to compare our results with those of the standard technique [13].
Method
Early-, and late-term continence rates, apical surgical
margin positivities, ages of the operated patients, preoperative
prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values, International Society
of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grades of surgical specimens,
pathological T stages, prostate volumes, blood losses during the
procedures, hospital stays, operative times, The International
Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) scores after six months
of surgery, biochemical recurrence rates of both groups
were compared. Continence status was evaluated with selfadministered
questionnaires at the 1st and 6th months after the
removal of the urinary catheters. Continence was described as
no use of pads and lack of any urine leakage.
Surgical Method
The da Vinci SI Surgical System is used. With the patient
in the lithotomy position, one camera, one assistant and three
robotic arm ports are placed after insufflation. After this step,
the patient is laid in the 30-degree Trendelenburg position. The
entire procedure is performed through transabdominal route.
After the dissection of the seminal vesicle, the Retzius cavity
is entered for anterior dissection. Endopelvic fascia is opened
and the puboprostatic ligaments are cut bilaterally. The deep
dorsal vein complex is ligated with 1-0 Vicryl sutures before
the prostate is dissected away from the bladder neck. Following
separation of the prostate from the bladder neck, the lateral
pedicles are clipped with Hem-O-Lock clips and cut. At this
stage, if the preservation of the neurovascular bundle (NVB)
is planned, then NVB is peeled off from the prostate capsule
by interfascial dissection. Subsequently, the previously sutured
deep dorsal vein complex is cut at an angle of 45 degrees
with monopolar cautery. Since control of the deep dorsal vein
complex will reduce bleeding at this stage, surgeon can keep on
dissection safely under a clear vision.
Description of the steps of the collar technique for apical dissection.
1. Apical dissection is started with a cold scissor incision starting from the 2-millimeter distal from the caudal border of the apex.
2. Apical dissection is continued until the smooth muscle layers at the transition between the membranous urethra and prostatic urethra are approached.
3. After exposure of the smooth muscle layer, dissection is continued into the prostate leaving a long urethra by cutting the urethra at a proximal point as far as possible from the rhabdosphincter.
4. After the sufficient length of urethral tissue is dissected, the anterior wall of the urethra is incised.
5. The urethral catheter is pulled out into the anterior urethra. The urethra is pulled through under the posterior wall with Maryland forceps. 6. The prostatectomy is completed by dissecting the posterior wall of the urethra away from the proximal of the colliculus seminalis and just distal of verumontanum (Figure 1,2 and 3).
7. The urethrovesical anastomosis is performed using continuous 3.0 V-lock sutures.
Using collar technique comparatively longer functional urethra can be left for anastomosis. The only difference of our technique from the collar technique is that we dissected away the deep dorsal vein complex before proceeding with apical dissection.
Figure 1. Transverse and lateral view of the prostate, urethra, and external urinary sphincter
Figure 2. After being cut the urethra from proximal of verumontanum
Figure 3. Preserved functional urethra in collar technique
Statistical Analysis
The two surgical groups were statistically compared using the
chi-square test or one-way analysis of the variance. Univariable
and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to
determine the predictive factors affecting the continence rate in
the first month after the catheter removal. Statistical significance
was accepted as p<0.05. IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0 was used for
the statistical analysis of research data.
Table 1. Patient characteristics
The integrity of the fibers of the rhabdosphincter muscle that extend into the prostate is preserved in the CT used for apical dissection and postoperatively a longer functional urethral stump is left. The study published by Lee et al., has shown that the prostate apex covered a significant part of the functional urethra (anteriorly and/or posteriorly) in >70% of the patients who underwent RP [17]. In 2011 Schlomm defined the FFLU preservation technique for open RP that aims to maintain a longer urethra in the patient by preserving the intraprostatic part of the urethra, including the colliculus seminalis [12]. In this study, we achieved similar oncological and functional results compared to the RALP procedure by adopting the CT for apical dissection which provides higher early-term continence rates without compromising oncological principles.
Many studies have shown that post-RP urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction negatively affect patients" psychological status [18-20]. For this reason, newly defined techniques or treatment methods are built on the principle of the least damage to urinary continence and erectile functions without affecting oncological results. Surgical margin positivity is one of the earliest indicators predicting the oncological success of surgical treatment. With the CT, we achieved higher early-term continence with similar surgical margin positivity rates in the RALP procedure compared to the ST. We could not compare the preoperative and postoperative erectile function status of our patients due to the retrospective nature of our study. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative IIEF scores.
The two groups were statistically significantly different from each other in terms of the rates of pathological T stage histologically detected in the radical prostatectomy specimens which is an indicator of heterogeneity between these two groups. However, Egawa et al. showed that the pathological T stage does not contribute to the prediction of incontinence after RP [21]. In accordance with this study, in our study we have also found that the pathological T stage did not affect 1st-month continence rates in univariable logistic regression analysis. Although the patients in the CT group had higher pathological T stages, their higher early-term continence rates could be interpreted in favor of the CT.
While performing apical dissection using CT, it is aimed to leave postoperatively longer functional urethra extending into the prostate. Still, it may be thought that this approach may pose a risk in terms of the apical positive surgical margin (PSM). In a multicenter series of 4001 patients who underwent RALP, Dev et al. reported that 27% of all PSMs were detected at the apex of the prostate gland. According to this study, only surgically positive margins of the apical regions were independent predictors of biochemical recurrence relative to basal margins (hazard ratio: 2.03) [22]. In the CT, which was defined by Bianchi L. et al., no significant difference was found with the standard technique in terms of locations of PSM [13]. In addition, in this study, CT was shown to be superior to ST in terms of overall PSM and apical PSM rates in the presence of apical tumors detected in preoperative MRI. In our study, any difference was not found between the two techniques in terms of both total PSM rates and PSM locations. This significant finding has shown that compliance of CT with oncological principles is not inferior to the ST.
In a systematic review that compared the recently popular Retzius-sparing RALP technique with the ST, shorter operative time and higher 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 12th-month continence rates of the Retzius-sparing technique were revealed while surgical margin positivity was observed less frequently in the ST (15.2% vs 24%, p=0.01) [23]. The surgical margin positivity status after RP is an essential factor indicating effective cancer control. In the "trifecta" study of Bianco Jr et al., the 5-year diseasefree survival rate was found to be 51% in patients with PSM, while this rate was 86% in patients with negative SM [24]. With increasing surgical experience, PSM rates may decrease in the Retzius-sparing technique, but we think that a new technique to be defined for RP should not have higher PSM rates than a globally accepted ST. We have revealed lack of any statistically significant difference between CT and ST in terms of PSM and biochemical recurrence rates.
The limitations of the study were that the study had a retrospective design, the length of the urethral stumps was not measured in the preoperative and intraoperative period, and the preoperative IIEF scores of the patients were not known.
Ethics Committee Approval: This study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Gazi University Faculty of Medicine (Approval date, and registration number: 22.02.2021- 193).
Informed Consent: Written informed consent was obtained from patients who participated in this study.
Publication: The results of the study were not published in full or in part in form of abstracts.
Peer-review: Externally and internally peer-reviewed.
Authorship Contributions: Any contribution was not made by any individual not listed as an author. Concept – A.U., S.C.; Design – S.C., F.P.; Supervision – A.U., F.P, A.A.; Resources – S.Y., M.Y.K., E.C.B.; Materials – S.Y., M.Y.K., E.C.B.; Data Collection and/or Processing – S.Y., M.Y.K., E.C.B.; Analysis and/or Interpretation – S.Y., M.Y.K., E.C.B.; Literature Search – S.Y., M.Y.K., E.C.B.; Writing Manuscript – A.U., S.C.; Critical Review – A.U., A.A.
Conflict of Interest: None
Financial Disclosure: The author declared that this study has received no financial support.
1) Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C,
Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide:
sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012.
Int J Cancer 2015;136:E359-86.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.29210
2) Gallina A, Chun FKH, Suardi N, Eastham JA, Perrotte P,
Graefen M, et al. Comparison of stage migration patterns
between Europe and the USA: an analysis of 11 350 men
treated with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. BJU
Int 2008;101:1513-8.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07519.x
3) Mottet N, van den Bergh RC, Briers E, Van den Broeck
T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-EANMESTRO-
ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer—2020
update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment
with curative intent. Eur Urol 2021;79:243-62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042
4) Reiner WG, Walsh PC. An anatomical approach to the
surgical management of the dorsal vein and Santorini"s plexus
during radical retropubic surgery. J Urol 1979;121:198-200.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)56718-x
5) Myers RP, Goellner JR, Cahill DR. Prostate shape, external
striated urethral sphincter and radical prostatectomy: the
apical dissection. J Urol 1987;138:543-50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)43253-8
6) Rocco F, Carmignani L, Acquati P, Gadda F, Dell"Orto
P, Rocco B, et al. Restoration of posterior aspect of
rhabdosphincter shortens continence time after radical
retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 2006;175:2201-6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00262-X
7) Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carroll PR,
Costello A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of
studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robotassisted
radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:405-17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.045
8) Hammerer P, Huland H. Urodynamic evaluation of changes
in urinary control after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J
Urol 1997;157:233-6.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8976260
9) Myers RP, Cahill DR, Devine RM, King BF. Anatomy of
radical prostatectomy as defined by magnetic resonance
imaging. J Urol 1998;159:2148-58.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9598561
10) Nguyen L, Jhaveri J, Tewari A. Surgical technique to
overcome anatomical shortcoming: balancing postprostatectomy
continence outcomes of urethral sphincter
lengths on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol
2008;179:1907-11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.036
11) Paparel P, Akin O, Sandhu JS, Otero JR, Serio AM,
Scardino PT, et al. Recovery of urinary continence after
radical prostatectomy: association with urethral length
and urethral fibrosis measured by preoperative and
postoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging. Eur
Urol 2009;55:629-39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.08.057
12) Schlomm T, Heinzer H, Steuber T, Salomon G, Engel O,
Michl U, et al. Full functional-length urethral sphincter
preservation during radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol
2011;60:320-9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.02.040
13) Bianchi L, Turri FM, Larcher A, De Groote R, De Bruyne
P, De Coninck V, et al. A novel approach for apical
dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: the
"collar" technique. Eur Urol Focus 2018;4:677-85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.01.004
14) Kojima Y, Takahashi N, Haga N, Nomiya M, Yanagida
T, Ishibashi K, et al. Urinary incontinence after robotassisted
radical prostatectomy: Pathophysiology and
intraoperative techniques to improve surgical outcome. Int
J Urol 2013;20:1052-63.
https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.12214
15) Song W, Kim CK, Park BK, Jeon HG, Jeong BC, Seo SI, et
al. Impact of preoperative and postoperative membranous
urethral length measured by 3 Tesla magnetic resonance
imaging on urinary continence recovery after roboticassisted
radical prostatectomy. Can Urol Assoc J
2017;11:E93-9.
https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.4035
16) Hakimi AA, Faleck DM, Agalliu I, Rozenblit AM,
Chernyak V, Ghavamian R. Preoperative and intraoperative
measurements of urethral length as predictors of continence
after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol
2011;25:1025-30.
https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0692
17) Lee SE, Byun S-S, Lee HJ, Song SH, Chang IH, Kim YJ,
et al. Impact of variations in prostatic apex shape on early
recovery of urinary continence after radical retropubic
prostatectomy. Urology 2006;68:137-41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.01.021
18) Pastore AL, Mir A, Maruccia S, Palleschi G, Carbone
A, Lopez C, et al. Psychological distress in patients
undergoing surgery for urological cancer: A single centre
cross-sectional study. Urol Oncol 2017:35:673.e1-673.e7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.08.006
19) Köhler N, Gansera L, Holze S, Friedrich M, Rebmann
U, Stolzenburg JU, et al. Cancer-related fatigue in
patients before and after radical prostatectomy. Results
of a prospective multi-centre study. Support Care Cancer
2014;22:2883-9.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-014-2265-5
20) Punnen S, Cowan JE, Dunn LB, Shumay DM, Carroll
PR, Cooperberg MR. A longitudinal study of anxiety,
depression and distress as predictors of sexual and urinary
quality of life in men with prostate cancer. BJU Int
2013;112:E67-75.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12209
21) Egawa S, Minei S, Iwamura M, Uchida T, Koshiba K.
Urinary continence following radical prostatectomy. Jpn J
Clin Oncol 1997;27:71-5.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/27.2.71
22) Dev HS, Wiklund P, Patel V, Parashar D, Palmer K,
Nyberg T, et al. Surgical margin length and location affect
recurrence rates after robotic prostatectomy. Urol Oncol
2015;33:109.e7-13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.11.005