The authors evaluate the impact of bilateral nerve-sparing technique on pathologic and functional outcomes of a large cohort of men who underwent robotic radical prostatectomy by 3 experienced surgeons. Some limitations of this study, as discussed by the authors, are the retrospective nature of the analysis, and the fact that the “extrafascial dissection” was initiated in 2006; therefore, by their own criteria, 10.4% of the patients in the IF group would have had EF dissection if they had undergone surgery after 2006. Also, the series is sequential, so the most recent patients have the benefit of increased surgeon experience and probably a slightly lower risk of disease because of stage migration in the PSA era, and the questionnaire data are absent in 25% of the cohort. The most significant limitation, however, is that multivariate analysis to examine the independent effect of nerve-sparing technique on positive margins and sexual function is not performed. Results that appear positive in univariate analysis may be affected by subtle prostate cancer risk, age, or era of treatment differences. 1 Nelles J.L. Freedland S.J. Presti Jr, J.C. et al. Impact of nerve sparing on surgical margins and biochemical recurrence: results from the SEARCH database. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2009; 12: 172-176 Crossref PubMed Scopus (22) Google Scholar We congratulate the authors for the prospective data collection, validated quality of life data, and the comprehensive reporting of their pathologic information. Extrafascial Versus Interfascial Nerve-sparing Technique for Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: Comparison of Functional Outcomes and Positive Surgical Margins CharacteristicsUrologyVol. 74Issue 3PreviewTo evaluate the pathologic and functional outcomes of patients with bilateral interfascial (IF) or extrafascial nerve-sparing (EF-NSP) techniques. It is believed that the IF-NSP technique used during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) spares more nerve fibers, while EF dissection may lower the risk for positive surgical margins (PSM). Full-Text PDF Editorial CommentUrologyVol. 74Issue 3PreviewIn this issue of Urology, Shikanov et al report the results of nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy in a large, prospective cohort.1 Three experienced surgeons used a partial extrafascial approach for moderately aggressive cancer and an interfascial approach for less aggressive cancer. Full-Text PDF ReplyUrologyVol. 74Issue 3PreviewWe appreciate the thoughtful and valid editorial comments. However, some issues have to be considered and reiterated. Full-Text PDF Editorial CommentUrologyVol. 74Issue 3PreviewThe introduction of robotic procedures for prostate cancer surgery is an unquestionably exciting development for the field of urology, much as that for any scientific discovery or innovative biotechnology brought to this field. However, for this application to be considered a major advancement, it must undergo proper and responsible evaluation of its merits. The touted advantages of robotic radical prostatectomy include reduced surgical blood loss and improved visualization during surgery, and claims have also been put forward that the surgery affords equivalent, if not heightened, outcomes of oncologic control and functional recovery of erectile function and urinary continence, when compared to the conventional open surgical approaches. Full-Text PDF