==inizio objective==
Robotic surgery could lead to improved continence outcome in terms of early recovery because of the magnified 3Dvision and the possibility to reach spaces other way not reachable. Age, scars in the rhabdosphincter, length of urethra and postoperative sphincter insufficiency have been considered as possible causes of temporary or definitive urinary incontinence.
We describe a modification of the anastomotic RALP technique that overcomes caudal retraction, reconstructs the posterior fibrous raphe, reconstructs the sphincter, “urethralizes” the levator-ani muscles and restores the anterior support.
Aim of the study is to compare retrospectively the new anastomotic RALP technique with standard technique performing Van Velthoven stitch with and without Rocco stich.
Primary endpoint is continence rate at different time; secondary endpoint is evaluation of urine leakage and anastomosis stenosis rates related to the technique.
==fine objective==
==inizio methodsresults==
From June 2015 to June 2017, 190 patients with localized prostate cancer underwent RALP new anastomosis (group 1) and were retrospectively compared with 200 patients (cT1-3,cN0, cM0) undergone Van Velthoven with Rocco stich (group 2) and 200 patients (cT1-3,cN0, cM0) undergone Van Velthoven without Rocco stich (group 3).
New surgical technique: the posterior semi-circumference of the sphincter is joined to the residuum of Denonvilliers’ fascia using a V-Lock 23 cm long continue suture including laterally part of levator-ani muscle; successively this suture is fixed to the posterior bladder wall 1 cm cranial and dorsal to the new bladder neck before completing the vesicourethral anastomosis with the aim to avoid caudal retraction of the urethrosphincteric complex. Vesicourethral anastomosis is subsequently performed with care taken not to involve the neurovascular bundles. To enlarge the concept of total anatomical reconstruction of Porpiglia we also “urethralize” the right and left levator- ani towards the anastomosis and restore the anterior support.
Pre, intra and postoperative and pathological variables were analyzed.
The same surgeon performed all RALP.
Continence was analyzed preoperatively and 24 hours, 1, 4 , 12 and 24 weeks after catheter removal.
==fine methodsresults==
==inizio results==
600 patients were analyzed. In group 1 the continence rate at catheter removal and at 1, 4, 12, and 24 weeks was 60.5%, 63.0%, 68.0%,69.0% and 71.0%, respectively.
In group 2 it was 52.0%, 52.5%,59.5%, 61.0% and 69.5%.
In group 3 it was 51.0%, 52.0%, 58.5%, 60.5% and 68.0%
Acute urinary retentions in group 1 was 2.5% (3 % in group 2 and 2.0% in group 3) and urine leakage was 1% (2% in group 2 and 3).
==fine results==
==inizio discussions==
The presence of urinary incontinence after RP can significantly impact patient quality of life, the desire to reduce the invasiveness of open surgery and the search for better functional results have been driving factors for the popularity of laparoscopic techniques. Optical magnification has been considered one of the strongest advantages of laparoscopy, and this is particularly true in the case of surgery for prostate cancer. Robotic technology provides further advantages, including binocular three-dimensional visualization with magnification, physiologic tremor of the surgeon’s hand filtration with demultiplication of movements, and wristed instrumentation. Meticulous, precise, and accurate surgical movements are fundamental for minimizing perioperative complications and preserving the key anatomical structures that are involved in urinary continence (1).
Indeed, many published papers have shown the advantages of robotics in terms of functional results (2-5).
Although the mechanism of continence recovery after surgery is complex and not wholly understood, it is universally accepted that the main aim of the surgeon must be to preserve the anatomical structures involved in continence and to precisely conduct reconstruction phase. In recent years, several technical modifications aimed to improve postoperative continence after RP have been proposed, including bladder neck preservation, intussusception of the bladder neck, approximation of anterior supporting structures with sparing or reconstruction of the puboprostatic ligaments, creation of posterior urethral support (posterior reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter), and variations of suspension
sutures . According to Patel et al (6), anterior support provides anatomical support for the urethra, which allows the urethral length to be maximized during apex dissection and either the urethra or the rhabdosphincter to be stabilized in their anatomical position.
Rocco et al (7) proposed a posterior fixation of the anastomosis; this technical modification has been widely used by RARP surgeons even if Menon et al (8) did not find any improvement in the early continence.
In the present study, we reported a RALP anastomosis technique that aimed to restore the anterior and posterior supports to the sphincter. Firstly, we believe that the preservation of pubo-prostatic ligaments is crucial because it allows for better apex dissection; secondly, incision of the bladder necks may be performed in a bloodless way and posterior aspect of the bladder neck should be anchored to the median raphe to reinforce the posterior reconstruction. Then prostatic apex should be done step-by-step, with meticulous dissection of muscular fibers limiting the use of cauterization as much as possible to preserve the anatomical structures that are involved in the support of the urethra and to maximize urethral length. The urethralization of levator ani muscle, as described by Porpiglia [5], do provide an improvement in the continence process as it is provided by ProACT ballons. During the anterior reconstruction, in our technique an apron will be restored and reanchored to the muscular fibers that arise from the anterior aspect of the rhabdosphincter. In summary, the three cornerstones of our technique are the anatomical dissection of the prostatic apex the restoration of the anatomy of the peri-urethral structures by protecting the anastomosis using three posterior layers and two anterior layers, which allows for “tension-free” anastomosis and finally the urethralization of the levator ani muscle.
==fine discussions==
==inizio conclusion==
There is no difference between the group 2 and group 3, anyway the new anastomotic technique (group 1) seems to be promising as it results in the early recovery of urinary continence.
==fine conclusion==
==inizio reference==
1) Ficarra, V., Novara, G., Rosen, R.C., Artibani, W., Carroll, P.R., Costello, A., Menon, M., Montorsi, F.,
Patel, V.R., Stolzenburg, J.U., Van der Poel, H., Wilson, T.G., Zattoni, F., and Mottrie, A. Systematic
review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted
radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012; 62: 405–417
2) Tewari, A., Srivasatava, A., and Menon, M. Members of the VIP Team. A prospective comparison of
radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int. 2003; 92:
205–210
11) Ficarra, V., Novara, G., Fracalanza, S., D’Elia, C., Secco, S., Iafrate, M., Cavalleri, S., and Artibani,
W. A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical
prostatectomy in one European institution. BJU Int. 2009; 104: 534–539
3) Rocco, B., Matei, D.V., Melegari, S., Ospina, J.C., Mazzoleni, F., Errico, G., Mastropasqua, M.,
Santoro, L., Detti, S., and de Cobelli, O. Robotic vs open prostatectomy in a laparoscopically naive
center: a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int. 2009; 104: 991–995
4) Di Pierro, G.B., Baumeister, P., Stucki, P., Beatrice, J., Danuser, H., and Mattei, A. A prospective trial
comparing consecutive series of open retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical
prostatectomy in a centre with a limited caseload. Eur Urol. 2011; 59: 1–6
5) Porpiglia, F., Morra, I., Lucci Chiarissi, M., Manfredi, M., Mele, F., Grande, S., Ragni, F., Poggio, M.,
and Fiori, C. Randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical
prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2013; 63: 606–614
6) Patel, V.R., Coelho, R.F., Palmer, K.J., and Rocco, B. Periurethral suspension stitch during robotassisted
laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of the technique and continence outcomes.
Eur Urol. 2009; 56: 472–478
7) Rocco, F., Carmignani, L., Acquati, P., Gadda, F., Dell’Orto, P., Rocco, B., Casellato, S., Gazzano,
G., and Consonni, D. Early continence recovery after open radical prostatectomy with restoration of
the posterior aspect of the rhabdosphincter. Eur Urol. 2007; 52: 376–383
8) Menon, M., Muhletaler, F., Campos, M., and Peabody, J.O. Assessment of early continence after
reconstruction of the periprostatic tissues in patients undergoing computer assisted (robotic)
prostatectomy: results of a 2 group parallel randomized controlled trial. J Urol. 2008; 180: 1018–
1023
==fine reference==