Modified posterior musculofascial plate reconstruction decreases the posterior vesicourethral angle and improves urinary continence recovery in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Ito,Keiichi; Kenji,Seguchi; Yoshii,Hidehiko; Hamada,Shinsuke; Asakuma,Junichi; Tasaki,Shinsuke; Kuroda,Kenji; Sato,Akinori; Horiguchi,Akio; Asano,Tomohiko

doi:10.3892/mco.2013.182

Modified posterior musculofascial plate reconstruction decreases the posterior vesicourethral angle and improves urinary continence recovery in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Authors:
- Keiichi Ito
- Seguchi Kenji
- Hidehiko Yoshii
- Shinsuke Hamada
- Junichi Asakuma
- Shinsuke Tasaki
- Kenji Kuroda
- Akinori Sato
- Akio Horiguchi
- Tomohiko Asano
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Urology, National Defense Medical College, Tokorozawa, Saitama 359‑8513, Japan
Published online on: September 12, 2013 https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2013.182
Pages: 970-976

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of our modified posterior musculofascial plate reconstruction (PMPR) procedure in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). Prior to 2010, four operative procedures were used to expedite continence recovery: preserving the fascia covering the levator ani muscle, preserving the bladder neck, securing a functional urethral length by using a lateral‑view dissection technique and suspending the vesicourethral anastomosis from the puboprostatic ligaments. Since February, 2010, a running suture between Denonvilliers' fascia (DF) and the median fibrous raphe (MFR, the fibrous tissue that lies immediately underneath the urethra) has also been used. In vesicourethral anastomosis, a double‑armed running suture was performed. At the beginning of the anastomosis, the first stitches (at 1 and 11 o'clock positions on the bladder neck) were placed 1‑2 cm dorsocephalad to the bladder neck (first through the seromuscular layer and then through the full thickness of the bladder neck). At the 5 and 7 o'clock positions of the urethra, the stitches were placed through the urethral mucosa as well as the the reconstructed musculofascial plate. The bladder shape was evaluated by postoperative cystography and the clinical results were compared between patients undergoing LRP without PMPR (group A) and those undergoing LRP with PMPR (group B). The cystograms demonstrated that the PMPR significantly shortened the vertical length of the bladder and significantly decreased the posterior vesicourethral angle. At 1, 3 and 6 months after LRP, the number of daily used pads was significantly lower in group B compared to that in group A and the time to achieve a pad‑free status was significantly shorter in group B. Our modified PMPR procedure significantly improved the recovery of urinary continence following LRP and this improvement may be due in part to changes of the bladder shape.

View Figures

View References

1.	Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Rozet F and Vallancien G: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: technical and early oncological assessment of 40 operations. Eur Urol. 36:14–20. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2.	Egawa S, Arai Y, Kawakita M, Matsuda T, et al: Surgical outcome of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: summary of early multiinstitutional experience in Japan. Int J Clin Oncol. 8:97–103. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar
3.	Namiki S, Egawa S, Baba S, et al: Recovery of quality of life in year after laparoscopic or retropubic radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional longitudinal study. Urology. 65:517–523. 2005.
4.	Azuma H, Ibuki N, Inamoto T, et al: Utility of transrectal ultrasonography guidance and seven key elements of operative skill for early recovery of urinary continence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Int J Oncol. 38:293–304. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar
5.	Curto F, Benijts J, Pansadoro A, et al: Nerve sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: our technique. Eur Urol. 49:344–352. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6.	Coakley FV, Eberhardt S, Kattan MW, Wei DC, Scardino PT and Hricak H: Urinary continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy: relationship with membranous urethral length on preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol. 168:1032–1035. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar
7.	Nguyen L, Jhaveri J and Tewari A: Surgical technique to overcome anatomical shortcoming: balancing post-prostatectomy continence outcomes of urethral sphincter lengths on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol. 179:1907–1911. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar
8.	Rocco F, Carmignani L, Acquati P, et al: Restoration of posterior aspect of rhabdosphincter shortens continence time after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 175:2201–2206. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar
9.	Rocco B, Gregori A, Stener S, et al: Posterior reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter allows a rapid recovery of continence after transperitoneal videolaparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 51:996–1003. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar
10.	Rocco F, Carmignani L, Acquati P, et al: Early continence recovery after open radical prostatectomy with restoration of the posterior aspect of the rhabdosphincter. Eur Urol. 52:376–383. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11.	Noguchi M, Kakuma T, Suekane S, Nakashima O, Mohamed ER and Matsuoka K: A randomized clinical trial of suspension technique for improving early recovery of urinary continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int. 102:958–963. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar
12.	Tewari A, Jhaveri J, Rao S, et al: Total reconstruction of the vesico-urethral junction. BJU Int. 101:871–877. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13.	Sasaki H, Miki J, Kimura T, et al: Lateral view dissection of the prostato-urethral junction to reduce positive apical margin in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol. 16:664–669. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar
14.	Menon M, Muhletaler F, Campos M and Peabody JO: 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. 180:1018–1023. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar
15.	Ozu C, Hagiuda J, Nakagami Y, et al: Radical retropubic prostatectomy with running vesicourethral anastomosis and early catheter removal: our experience. Int J Urol. 16:487–492. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16.	Kakehi Y, Kamoto T, Ogawa O, et al: Development of Japanese version of the UCLA Prostate Cancer Index: a pilot validation study. Int J Clin Oncol. 7:306–311. 2002.PubMed/NCBI
17.	Guillonneau B, Rozet F, Barret E, Cathelineau X and Vallancien G: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 240 procedures. Urol Clin North Am. 28:189–202. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18.	Kavoussi LR: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: irrational exuberance? Urology. 58:503–505. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19.	Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Lee D and Clayman RV: Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 170:1738–1741. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar
20.	Soga H, Takenaka A, Murakami G and Fujisawa M: Topographical relationship between urethral rhabdosphincter and rectourethralis muscle: a better understanding of the apical dissection and the posterior stitches in radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol. 15:729–732. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar
21.	Rocco B and Rocco F: Re: 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: M. Menon, F. Muhletaler, M. Campos and J. O. Peabody. J Urol. 2008.180:1018–1023, J Urol 181: 1500–1501; author reply 1501, 2009.
22.	Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Orvieto MA, et al: Influence of modified posterior reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter on early recovery of continence and anastomotic leakage rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 59:72–80. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar
23.	Walz J, Burnett AL, Costello AJ, 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. 57:179–192. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar
24.	Sano T, Nakashima M, Haitani T, Kajita Y and Shichiri Y: Posterior musculofascial plate reconstruction promotes early restoration of continence and prevents severe incontinence in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol. 19:475–479. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar
25.	Burkhard FC, Kessler TM, Fleischmann A, Thalmann GN, Schumacher M and Studer UE: Nerve sparing open radical retropubic prostatectomy - does it have an impact on urinary continence? J Urol. 176:189–195. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26.	Nandipati KC, Raina R, Agarwal A and Zippe CD: Nerve-sparing surgery significantly affects long-term continence after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 70:1127–1130. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar