Randomised comparison of techniques for control of the dorsal venous complex during robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

• Published in: BJU international Vol. 126; no. 5; pp. 586 - 594
• Main Authors: Feng, Tom, Heulitt, Gerald, Lee, Janet J., Liao, Michael, Li, Hsin‐Fang, Porter, James R.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.11.2020
• Subjects: Aged; Body mass index; Body size; Cancer surgery; continence; dorsal venous complex; Endoscopy; Erectile Dysfunction; erectile function; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications; Prostate; Prostate - blood supply; Prostate - surgery; Prostate cancer; Prostatectomy; Prostatectomy - adverse effects; Prostatectomy - methods; Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery; Robotic surgery; Robotic Surgical Procedures - adverse effects; Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods; robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy; Sutures; Treatment Outcome; Urinary Incontinence; Urological surgery; Urology; dorsal venous complex; erectile function; prostate cancer; continence; robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; Urology
• ISSN: 1464-4096; 1464-410X
• DOI: 10.1111/bju.15133

Objective To prospectively compare the effects of endoscopic stapling, division and suture ligation, and suture ligation with suspension of the dorsal venous complex (DVC) on continence during robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP). Patients and methods In all, 300 consecutive patients undergoing RARP by a single surgeon were randomised to three groups: endoscopic stapling, cut and suture ligation, and suture ligation with suspension. The only difference between the groups was the technique to control the DVC. Pad‐free continence (PFC) and overall continence (0 pads/day with or without security pad) were assessed with patient reported pad usage records and validated questionnaires (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index) at 3, 12, and 15 months. Secondary endpoints were erectile function (EF) recovery (defined as erections sufficient for sexual activity) and the rate of apical surgical margins. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to determine predictors for recovery of both urinary continence and EF. Results The three groups were comparable in terms of age, body mass index, prostate size, American Urological Association symptom score, Sexual Health Inventory for Men, and clinical stage. There were no differences found in terms of operative times, estimated blood loss, pathological stage, and positive apical margin. There was no difference between the three groups with regard to overall continence or PFC at 3 months. However, overall continence at 15 months for ligation and suspension was 99% and was superior to stapler (88%) (P = 0.002) and cut and suture ligation (88%) (P = 0.002). Additionally, PFC at 15 months was superior for ligation and suspension (87%) as compared to stapler (73%) and cut and suture ligation (75%) (P = 0.045). The technique of DVC control did not impact EF. Men with nerve sparing had better continence compared to no nerve sparing at 3 months (62% vs 42%, P = 0.045), but not at 15 months. The median time to continence was 2 months for patients receiving nerve sparing compared to 4.5 months for non‐nerve sparing (P = 0.02). Conclusion Suture suspension of the DVC during RARP contributes to higher overall continence rates compared to stapling and cut and suture. Nerve sparing contributes to earlier return of continence than non‐nerve sparing.