Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Predictive factors for return of erectile function in robotic radical prostatectomy: case series from a single centre

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 27, pages 29–32 (2015)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Postprostatectomy erectile dysfunction is a frequent complication of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). We attempted to retrospectively identify objective predictors of erectile recovery in a population of potent men undergoing RARP. Data for 375 consecutive patients were collected prospectively from a single surgeon in an academic institution from 2005 to 2011. Inclusion criteria were 2 years of complete follow-up, preoperative International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) scores of ≥22 without erectogenic aids and no adjuvant therapy (n=86). Patients were grouped by erectile function at 2 years as ‘Recovery’ (IIEF ≥17, n=41) and ‘non-recovery’ (IIEF <16, n=45). Baseline and perioperative characteristics were evaluated between groups. Body mass index, operative time and gland volumes were not different between groups. Univariate analysis demonstrated that higher preoperative prostate-specific antigen, longer apical dissection time and non-nerve-sparing surgery decreased erectile recovery. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that longer apical dissection time remained an independent predictor of decreased erectile function (P<0.001). In contrast, postoperative intracavernosal injection (ICI) was found to predict erectile recovery (P=0.017). At 2-year follow-up, prolonged apical dissection time predicts nonrecovery and ICI rehabilitation predicts recovery of erectile function after RARP. This can inform patients’ postoperative expectations. However, further studies are needed to support the findings of this exploratory analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Government of Canada Public Health Agency of Canada. Prostate Cancer - Chronic Diseases - Public Health Agency of Canada 2 March 2009.

  2. Cancer of the Prostate - SEER Stat Fact Sheets [Internet]. [cited 27 January 2014]. Available from: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html.

  3. Walsh PC, Lepor H, Eggleston JC . Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations. Prostate 1983; 4: 473–485.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, Guillonneau B, Vallancien G . Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology 2002; 60: 864–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, Costello A, Eastham Ja, Graefen M et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 418–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A, Graefen M et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 1037–1063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Savera AT, Kaul S, Badani K, Stark AT, Shah NL, Menon M . Robotic radical prostatectomy with the ‘Veil of Aphrodite’ technique: histologic evidence of enhanced nerve sparing. Eur Urol 2006; 49: 1065–1073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tewari A, Rao S, Martinez-Salamanca JI, Leung R, Ramanathan R, Mandhani A et al. Cancer control and the preservation of neurovascular tissue: how to meet competing goals during robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2008; 101: 1013–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Schatloff O, Chauhan S, Kameh D, Valero R, Ko YH, Sivaraman A et al. Cavernosal nerve preservation during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is a graded rather than an all-or-none phenomenon: objective demonstration by assessment of residual nerve tissue on surgical specimens. Urology 2012; 79: 596–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Patel VR, Sivaraman A, Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Palmer KJ, Orvieto MA et al. Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 702–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Martínez CH, Chalasani V, Lim D, Nott L, Al-Bareeq RJ, Wignall GR et al. Effect of prostate gland size on the learning curve for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does size matter initially? J Endourol 2010; 24: 261–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Alemozaffar M, Duclos A, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Borza T, Yu H-Y et al. Technical refinement and learning curve for attenuating neurapraxia during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy to improve sexual function. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 1222–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chin JL, Luke PP, Pautler SE . Initial experience with robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in the Canadian health care system. Can Urol Assoc J 2007; 1: 97–101.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Schatloff O, Chauhan S, Sivaraman A, Kameh D, Palmer KJ, Patel VR . Anatomic grading of nerve sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 796–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kiyoshima K, Yokomizo A, Yoshida T, Tomita K, Yonemasu H, Nakamura M et al. Anatomical features of periprostatic tissue and its surroundings: a histological analysis of 79 radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2004; 34: 463–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Masterson Ta, Serio AM, Mulhall JP, Vickers AJ, Eastham JA . Modified technique for neurovascular bundle preservation during radical prostatectomy: association between technique and recovery of erectile function. BJU Int 2008; 101: 1217–1222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gratzke C, Strong TD, Gebska Ma, Champion HC, Stief CG, Burnett AL et al. Activated RhoA/Rho kinase impairs erectile function after cavernous nerve injury in rats. J Urol Elsevier Inc 2010; 184: 2197–2204.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Leungwattanakij S, Bivalacqua TJ, Usta MF, Yang D-Y, Hyun J-S, Champion HC et al. Cavernous neurotomy causes hypoxia and fibrosis in rat corpus cavernosum. J Androl 2003; 24: 239–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. User HM, Hairston JH, Zelner DJ, McKenna KE, McVary KT . Penile weight and cell subtype specific changes in a post-radical prostatectomy model of erectile dysfunction. J Urol 2003; 169: 1175–1179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Salonia A, Burnett AL, Graefen M, Hatzimouratidis K, Montorsi F, Mulhall JP et al. Prevention and management of postprostatectomy sexual dysfunctions. Part 1: choosing the right patient at the right time for the right surgery. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 261–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Iacono F, Giannella R, Somma P, Manno G, Fusco F, Mirone V . Histological alterations in cavernous tissue after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2005; 173: 1673–1676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Moreland RB . Is there a role of hypoxemia in penile fibrosis: a viewpoint presented to the Society for the Study of Impotence. Int J Impot Res 1998; 10: 113–120.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Garcia FJ, Brock G . Current state of penile rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy. Curr Opin Urol 2010; 20: 234–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mulhall JP, Bivalacqua TJ, Becher EF . Standard operating procedure for the preservation of erectile function outcomes after radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med 2013; 10: 195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Eastham Ja, Scardino PT, Kattan MW . Predicting an optimal outcome after radical prostatectomy: the trifecta nomogram. J Urol 2008 Jun; 179: 2207–2210, discussion 2210–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ficarra V, Sooriakumaran P, Novara G, Schatloff O . Systematic review of methods for reporting combined outcomes after radical prostatectomy and proposal of a novel system : the survival, continence, and potency (SCP) classification. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 541–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pautler SE . Reporting the Canadian robotic experience: the outcomes and how we report them. Can Urol Assoc J 2013; 7: 333–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kilminster S, Müller S, Menon M, Joseph JV, Ralph DJ, Patel HRH . Predicting erectile function outcome in men after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012; 110: 422–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Alemozaffar M, Regan MM, Cooperberg MR, Wei JT, Michalski JM, Sandler HM et al. Prediction of erectile function following treatment for prostate cancer. JAMA 2011; 306: 1205–1214.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Rosen RC, Riley A, Wagner G, Osterloh IH, Kirkpatrick J, Mishra A . The international index of erectile function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology 1997; 49: 822–830.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Rosen RC, Cappelleri JC, Smith MD, Lipsky J, Peña BM . Development and evaluation of an abridged, 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) as a diagnostic tool for erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 1999; 11: 319–326.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Van der Poel HG, Tillier C, de Blok WM, Acar C, EHAM van Muilekom, RCN van den Bergh . Interview-based versus questionnaire-based quality of life outcomes before and after prostatectomy. J Endourol 2013; 27: 1411–1416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Moskovic DJ, Alphs H, Nelson CJ, Rabbani F, Eastham J, Touijer K et al. Subjective characterization of nerve sparing predicts recovery of erectile function after radical prostatectomy: defining the utility of a nerve sparing grading system. J Sex Med 2011; 8: 255–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada

    F J Garcia & P D Violette

  2. St Joseph’s Health Care, London, ON, Canada

    F J Garcia, P D Violette, G B Brock & S E Pautler

Authors
  1. F J Garcia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P D Violette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G B Brock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S E Pautler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F J Garcia.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

GBB is in the advisory board and clinical trial, and is speaker and stock holder in Coloplast, JNJ, Pfizer, Lilly, GSK, Abbott, AMS and Astellas. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Garcia, F., Violette, P., Brock, G. et al. Predictive factors for return of erectile function in robotic radical prostatectomy: case series from a single centre. Int J Impot Res 27, 29–32 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2014.20

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2014.20

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links