ANATOMICAL LANDMARKS FOR ROBOTIC NERVE SPARING RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY
https://doi.org/10.17650/1726-9776-2013-9-2-10-16
Abstract
A detailed anatomical study of the prostate and pelvic organs has been recently relevant. Their anatomical knowledge is directly associated with the improved procedure of nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, which contributes to the preservation of the anatomical structures responsible for postsurgical erection and urinary continence. The main tasks of radical prostatectomy are effective cancer control, early recovery of urinary continence, and recovery of erectile function.
The literature on the anatomy of the prostate and its adjacent structures is analyzed in the context of nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
About the Authors
T. N. Moiseenko
Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry named after A.I. Evdokimov
Russian Federation
Department of Urology
Russian Federation
Department of Urology
A. V. Govorov
Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry named after A.I. Evdokimov
Russian Federation
Department of Urology
Russian Federation
Department of Urology
M. A. Prokopovich
Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry named after A.I. Evdokimov
Russian Federation
Department of Urology
Russian Federation
Department of Urology
D. Yu. Pushkar
Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry named after A.I. Evdokimov
Russian Federation
Department of Urology
Russian Federation
Department of Urology
References
1. El-Hakim A., Leung R.A., Tewari A. Robotic prostatectomy: pooled analysis of published literature. Expert review Anticancer Therapy 2006;6:11–20.
2. Takenaka A., Leung R.A., Fujisawa M., Tewari A.K. Anatomy of autonomic nerve component in the male pelvis: the new concept from a perspective for robotic nerve sparing radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 2006;24:136–43.
3. Walz J., Burnett A.L., Costello A.J. et al. A critical analysis of the current knowledge of surgical anatomy related to optimization of cancer control and preservation of continence and erection in candidates for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2010;57:179–92.
4. Myers R.P. Practical surgical anatomy for radical prostatectomy. Urol Clin North Am 2001;28:473–90.
5. Takenaka A., Tewari A.K., Leung R.A. et al. Preservation of the puboprostatic collar and puboperineoplasty for early recovery of urinary continence after robotic prostatectomy: anatomic basis and preliminary outcomes. Eur Urol 2007;51:433–40.
6. Srivatsava A., Grover S., Sooriakumaran P. et al. Neuroanatomic basis for traction-freepreservation of the neural hammock during athermal robotic radical prostatectomy. Cur Opin Urol 2011;21:49–59.
7. Young H.H. The radical cure of cancer of the prostate. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1937;64:472–84.
8. Poore R.E., McCullough D.L., Jarow J.P. Puboprostatic ligament sparing improves urinary continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy: a technique to reduce pT2 positive margins. Urology 2004;64:1224–8.
9. Myers R.P. Detrusor apron, associated vascular plexus, and avascular plane: relevance to radical retropubic prostatectomy – anatomic and surgical commentary. Urology 2002;59:479–9.
10. Walsh P.C., Partin A.W. Anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy. In: Wein A.J., Kavoussi L.R., Peters C.A. et al. Campbell-Walsh urology, V.3 Philadelphia, PA: Elsiever Health Sciences; 2006, p. 2956–78.
11. Tewari A., Rao S., Martinez-Salamanca J.I. et al. Cancer control and the preservation of neurovascular tissue: how to meet competing goals during robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU International 2008;101:1013–8.
12. Tewari A., El-Hakim A., Rao S., Raman J.D. Identification of the retrotrigonal layer as a key anatomical landmark during robotically assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2006;98:829–32.
13. Kowalczyk K.J., Huang A.C., Hevelon e N.D. et al. Stepwise approach for nerve sparing without countertraction during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: technique and outcomes. Eur Urol 2011;6:536–47.
14. Huang A.C., Kowalczyk K.J., Hevelone N.D. et al. The impact of prostate size, median lobe, and prior benign prostatic hyperplasia intervention on robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: technique and outcomes. Eur Urol 2011;59:235–43.
15. Walsh P.C., Donker P.J. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol 1982;128:492–7.
16. Takenaka A., Tewari A.K. Anatomical basis for carrying out a state-of-the-art radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol 2012;11:7–19.
17. Eichelberg C., Erbersdobler A., Michl U. et al. Nerve distribution along the prostatic capsule. Eur Urol 2007;51:105–11.
18. Secin F.P., Bianco F.J. Surgical anatomy of radical prostatectomy:periprostatic fascial anatomy and overview of urinary sphincters. Arch Esp Urol 2010;64(4):255–66.
19. Berry A., Korkes F., Hu J. Landmarks for consistent nerve sparing during robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2008;22:1565–8.
20. Menon M., Tewari A., Peabody J. et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technique. J Urol 2003;169:2289–92.
21. Rocco F., Carmignani L., Acquati P. et al. Restoration of posterior aspect of rhabdosphincter shortens continence time after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 2006;175:2201–6.
Review
For citations:
Moiseenko T.N., Govorov A.V., Prokopovich M.A., Pushkar D.Yu. ANATOMICAL LANDMARKS FOR ROBOTIC NERVE SPARING RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY. Cancer Urology. 2013;9(2):10-16. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17650/1726-9776-2013-9-2-10-16
Views:
824
Email this article 