Different Nerve-Sparing Techniques during Radical Prostatectomy and Their Impact on Functional Outcomes.

Abstract

Simple SummaryOptimum preservation of potency and continence after radical prostatectomy (RP) are equally important surgical endpoints as cancer control itself. Nerve-sparing technique during RP has a major impact to both oncological and functional outcomes of the procedure and various different techniques have been developed aiming to optimize its outcomes. This literature review aims to summarize all different nerve-sparing techniques applied during RP from its first description from Patrick C. Walsh to its newer trends. The review underlines that optimum nerve-sparing expands far beyond recognising and preserving the anatomical integrity of the neurovascular bundles. It also emphasises that nerve-sparing is a field under constant development, with new technologies entering continuously the nerve-sparing field corresponding to the evolving open, laparoscopic and robotic-assisted RP approaches.The purpose of this narrative review is to describe the different nerve-sparing techniques applied during radical prostatectomy and document their functional impact on postoperative outcomes. We performed a PubMed search of the literature using the keywords “nerve-sparing”, “techniques”, “prostatectomy” and “outcomes”. Other potentially eligible studies were retrieved using the reference list of the included studies. Nerve-sparing techniques can be distinguished based on the fascial planes of dissection (intrafascial, interfascial or extrafascial), the direction of dissection (retrograde or antegrade), the timing of the neurovascular bundle dissection off the prostate (early vs. late release), the use of cautery, the application of traction and the number of the neurovascular bundles which are preserved. Despite this rough categorisation, many techniques have been developed which cannot be integrated in one of the categories described above. Moreover, emerging technologies have entered the nerve-sparing field, making its future even more promising. Bilateral nerve-sparing of maximal extent, athermal dissection of the neurovascular bundles with avoidance of traction and utilization of the correct planes remain the basic principles for achieving optimum functional outcomes. Given that potency and continence outcomes after radical prostatectomy are multifactorial endpoints in addition to the difficulty in their postoperative assessment and the well-documented discrepancy existing in their definition, safe conclusions about the superiority of one technique over the other cannot be easily drawn. Further studies, comparing the different nerve-sparing techniques, are necessary.