Clinical safety and feasibility of a newly developed, simple algorithm for decision-making on neurovascular bundle preservation in radical prostatectomy

Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology

Volumn 40, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 343-348

  Hashimoto, Kohei ^a   Hisasue, Shin Ichi ^a   Masumori, Naoya ^a   Kobayashi, Ko ^a   Kato, Ryuichi ^a   Fukuta, Fumimasa ^a   Takahashi, Atsushi ^b   Hasegawa, Tadashi ^a   Tsukamoto, Taiji ^a  

^a SAPPORO MEDICAL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

^b National Hospital Organization   (Japan)

Author keywords

Indication; Nerve sparing; Radical prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHM; ANTIGEN DETECTION; ARTICLE; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEASIBILITY STUDY; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEUROVASCULAR BUNDLE PRESERVATION; PERIPHERAL NERVE; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; SAFETY; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TUMOR VOLUME; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; INNERVATION; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PROSTATE; PROSTATE TUMOR; VALIDATION STUDY; VASCULARIZATION;

AGED; ALGORITHMS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROSTATE; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 77951239930     PISSN: 03682811     EISSN: 14653621     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyp157     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Rabbani F, Stapleton AM, Kattan MW, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. Factors predicting recovery of erections after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2000;164:1929-34.
2. Wieder JA, Soloway MS. Incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 1998;160:299-315.
3. Karakiewicz PI, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Cagiannos I, Stricker PD, Klein E, et al. Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in surgically treated prostate cancer: multi-institutional assessment of 5831 patients. Urology 2005;66:1245-50.
4. Hashimoto K, Masumori N, Takei F, Fukuta F, Takahashi A, Itoh N, et al. Prognostic value of surgical margin status for biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2008;38:31-5.
5. Suzuki K, Sato Y, Horita H, Adachi H, Kato R, Hisasue S, et al. The correlation between penile tumescence measured by the erectometer and penile rigidity by the RigiScan. Int J Urol 2001;8:594-8.
6. Walsh PC. Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique. J Urol 1998;160:2418-24.
7. Ward JF, Zincke H, Bergstralh EJ, Slezak JM, Myers RP, Blute ML. The impact of surgical approach (nerve bundle preservation versus wide local excision) on surgical margins and biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2004;172:1328-32.
8. Palisaar RJ, Noldus J, Graefen M, Erbersdobler A, Haese A, Huland H. Influence of nerve-sparing (NS) procedure during radical prostatectomy (RP) on margin status and biochemical failure. Eur Urol 2005;47: 176-84.
9. Shah O, Robbins DA, Melamed J, Lepor H. The New York University nerve sparing algorithm decreases the rate of positive surgical margins following radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 2003;169: 2147-52.
10. Kamat AM, Jacobsohn KM, Troncoso P, Shen Y, Wen S, Babaian RJ. Validation of criteria used to predict extraprostatic cancer extension: a tool for use in selecting patients for nerve sparing radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2005;174:1262-5.
11. Graefen M, Haese A, Pichlmeier U, Hammerer PG, Noldus J, Butz K, et al. A validated strategy for side specific prediction of organ confined prostate cancer: a tool to select for nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2001;165:857-63.
12. Tsuzuki T, Hernandez DJ, Aydin H, Trock B, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. Prediction of extraprostatic extension in the neurovascular bundle based on prostate needle biopsy pathology, serum prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination. J Urol 2005;173:450-3.
13. Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M, Kattan MW, Wheeler T, Maru N, et al. Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2005;174:903-7.
14. Miyao N, Adachi H, Sato Y, Horita H, Takahashi A, Masumori N, et al. Recovery of sexual function after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy or cystectomy. Int J Urol 2001;8:158-64.
15. Shimizu T, Hisasue S, Sato Y, Kato R, Kobayashi K, Tsukamoto T. Erectile dysfunction following nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy and its treatment with sildenafil. Int J Urol 2005;12: 552-7.
16. Kaiho Y, Nakagawa H, Ikeda Y, Namiki S, Numahata K, Satoh M, et al. Intraoperative electrophysiological confirmation of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2005;173:1139-42.
17. Walsh PC. Radical prostatectomy, preservation of sexual function, cancer control. The controversy. Urol Clin North Am 1987;14: 663-73.
18. Hernandez DJ, Epstein JI, Trock BJ, Tsuzuki T, Carter HB, Walsh PC. Radical retropubic prostatectomy. How often do experienced surgeons have positive surgical margins when there is extraprostatic extension in the region of the neurovascular bundle? J Urol 2005;173:446-9.
19. Chuang MS, O'Connor RC, Laven BA, Orvieto MA, Brendler CB. Early release of the neurovascular bundles and optical loupe magnification lead to improved and earlier return of potency following radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 2005;173:537-9.