Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anatomical Aspects of the Neurovascular Bundle in Prostate Surgery

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Robotic Urology

  • 1234 Accesses

Abstract

Over recent years, widespread prostate-specific antigen screening has resulted in a downwards stage migration of prostate cancer in developed nations, with most patients being diagnosed nowadays at a younger age with early organ-confined disease (Schröder et al., N Engl J Med 360:1320–8, 2009; Jemal et al., CA Cancer J Clin 59:225–49, 2009; Quinn and Babb, BJU Int 90:162–73, 2002). Radical prostatectomy has a proven survival benefit over conservative treatment (Bill-Axelson et al., N Engl J Med 352:1977–84, 2005; Tewari et al., J Urol 171:1513–9, 2004), and thus is the gold standard for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer. Hence, with more patients undergoing surgery, minimizing functional loss is of utmost importance. However, despite recent advances in surgical technique and technologies, return of erectile function sufficient for sexual intercourse at 1 year after surgery varies from 15 to 87%, respectively, in contemporary series of radical prostatectomy (Zippe et al., Int J Impot Res 18:1–18, 2006; Berryhill et al., Urology 72:15–23, 2008; Ficarra et al., Eur Urol 55:1037–63, 2009). For younger men, postprostatectomy erectile dysfunction (PPED) significantly affects their sense of masculinity and their daily interactions with women (Penson et al., J Clin Oncol 21:1147–54, 2003; Kirschner-Hermanns and Jakse, Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 43:141–51, 2002). Patient age, clinical and pathological stage of cancer, preoperative potency status, and aggressiveness of nerve-sparing are the most significant factors for recovery of potency after surgery (Quinlan et al., J Urol 145:998–1002, 1991; Rabbani et al., J Urol 164:1929–34, 2000; Dubbelman et al., Eur Urol 50:711–20, 2006). Surgeon experience and surgical volume, penile ischemia and subsequent fibrosis, and veno-occlusive disease are also important for successful return of sexual function following surgery (McCullough, Asian J Androl 10:61–74, 2008; Bianco et al., J Sex Med 1:33, 2004).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1320–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59:225–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Quinn M, Babb P. Patterns and trends in prostate cancer incidence, survival, prevalence and mortality. Part 1: international comparisons. BJU Int. 2002;90:162–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(19):1977–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tewari A, Johnsson CC, Devine G, Crawford ED, Gamito EJ, Demers R, Menon M. Long-term survival probability in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: a case–control, propensity modeling study stratified by race, age, treatment and co-morbidities. J Urol. 2004;171:1513–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Zippe C, Nandipati K, Agarwal A, Raina R. Sexual dysfunction after pelvic surgery. Int J Impot Res. 2006;18:1–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Berryhill R Jr, Jhaveri J, Yadav R, et al. Robotic prostatectomy: a review of outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open approaches. Urology. 2008;72:15–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2009;55:1037–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Penson DF, Feng Z, Kuniyuki A, McClerran D, Albertsen PC, Deapen D, et al. General quality of life 2 years following treatment for prostate cancer: what influences outcomes? Results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:1147–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kirschner-Hermanns R, Jakse G. Quality of life following radical prostatectomy. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2002;43:141–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Quinlan DM, Epstein JI, Carter BS, Walsh PC. Sexual function following radical prostatectomy: influence of preservation of neurovascular bundles. J Urol. 1991;145:998–1002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rabbani F, Stapleton AM, Kattan MW, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. Factors predicting recovery of erections after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2000;164(6):1929–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dubbelman YD, Dohle GR, Schroder FH. Sexual function before and after radical retropubic prostatectomy: a systematic review of prognostic indicators for a successful outcome. Eur Urol. 2006;50:711–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. McCullough AR. Rehabilitation of erectile function following radical prostatectomy. Asian J Androl. 2008;10(1):61–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bianco F, Kattan M, Eastham J, Scardino P, Mulhall JP. Surgeon and surgical volume as predictors of erectile function outcomes following radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med. 2004;1:33.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kim ED, Blackburn D, McVary KT. Post-radical prostatectomy penile blood flow: assessment with color Doppler ultrasound. J Urol. 1994;152:2276–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mulhall JP, Slovick R, Hotaling J, et al. Erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy: haemodynamic profiles and their correlation with the recovery of erectile function. J Urol. 2002;167:1371–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kawanishi Y, Lee KS, Kimura K, Kojima K, Yamamoto A, Numata A. Effect of radical retropubic prostatectomy on erectile function, evaluated before and after surgery using color Doppler ultrasonography and nocturnal penile tumescence monitoring. BJU Int. 2001;88:244–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Walz J, Graefen M, Huland H. Basic principles of anatomy for optimal surgical management of prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2007;25:31–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol. 1982;128:492–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lepor H, Gregerman M, Crosby R, Mostofi FK, Walsh PC. Precise localization of the autonomic nerves from the pelvic plexus to the corpora cavernosa: a detailed anatomical study of the adult male pelvis. J Urol. 1985;133:207–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Walsh PC. Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of surgical technique. J Urol. 1998;160:2418–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Costello AJ, Brooks M, Cole OJ. Anatomical studies of the neurovascular bundle and cavernosal nerves. BJU Int. 2004;94:1071–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Takenaka A, Murakami G, Matsubara A, et al. Variation in course of cavernous nerve with special reference to details of topographic relationships near prostatic apex: histologic study using male cadavers. Urology. 2005;65:136–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kiyoshima K, Yokomizo A, Yoshida T, et al. Anatomic features of periprostatic tissue and its surroundings: a histological analysis of 79 radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2004;34:463–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Eichelberg C, Erbersdobler A, Michl U, Schlomm T, Salomon G, Graefen M, et al. Nerve distribution along the prostatic capsule. Eur Urol. 2007;51(1):105–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tewari A, Takenaka A, Mtui E, Horninger W, Peschel R, Bartsch G, Vaughan ED. The proximal neurovascular plate and the tri-zonal neural architecture around the prostate gland: importance in the athermal robotic technique of nerve-sparing prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2006;98:318–23.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Tewari A, Tan GY, Dorsey PJ Jr, Yadav R, Ramanathan R, Patel N, Takenaka A. Optimizing erectogenic outcomes during athermal robotic prostatectomy: a risk-stratified tri-zonal approach. Urol Times Clin Ed. 2008;3:s4–s12.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Tewari A, Peabody JO, Fischer M, et al. An operative and anatomic study to help in nerve-sparing during laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2003;43:444–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Magera JS, Inman BA, Slezak JM, Bagniewski SM, Sebo TJ, Myers RP. Increased optical magnification from 2.5× to 4.3× with technical modification lowers the positive margin rate in open radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2008;179:130–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Klotz L, Herschorn S. Early experience with intraoperative cavernous nerve stimulation with penile tumescence monitoring to improve nerve sparing during radical prostatectomy. Urology. 1998;52:537–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Walsh PC, Marschke P, Catalona WJ, Lepor H, Martin S, Myers RP, et al. Efficacy of first-generation CaverMap to verify location and function of cavernous nerves during radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional evaluation by experienced surgeons. Urology. 2001;57:491–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Holzbeierlein J, Peterson M, Smith JA Jr. Variability of results of cavernous nerve stimulation during radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2001;165:108–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ukimura O, Gill IS, Desai MM, et al. Real-time transrectal ultrasonography during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2004;172:112–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Huang D, Swanson EA, Lin CP, et al. Optical coherence tomography. Science. 1991;254:1178–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Mourant JR, Bigio IJ, Boyer J, et al. Spectroscopic diagnosis of bladder cancer with elastic light scattering. Lasers Surg Med. 1995;17:350–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Crow P, Molckovsky A, Stone J, et al. Assessment of fibreoptic near-infrared Raman spectroscopy for diagnosis of bladder and prostate cancer. Urology. 2005;65:1126–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Davila HH, Mamcarz M, Nadelhaft I, et al. Visualization of the neurovascular bundles and major pelvic ganglion with fluorescent tracers after penile injection in the rat. BJU Int. 2007;101:1048–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Yadav R, Mukherjee S, Hermen M, et al. Multiphoton microscopy of prostate and periprostatic neural tissue: a promising imaging technique for improving nerve-sparing prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2009;23:861–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden

    Prasanna Sooriakumaran

  2. Department of Urology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, Singapore

    Gerald Y. Tan

  3. James Buchanan Brady Foundation Department of Urology, Lefrak Institute of Robotic Surgery, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 525 East 68th Street, Starr 900, New York, NY, 10065, USA

    Sonal Grover

  4. Division of Urology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan

    Atsushi Takenaka

  5. James Buchanan Brady Foundation Department of Urology, Centre for Prostate Cancer Research and Clinical Care, LeFrak Institute of Robotic Surgery, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 525 East 68th Street, Starr 900, New York, NY, 10065, USA

    Ashutosh K. Tewari

  6. Prostate Cancer Institute, New York, NY, USA

    Ashutosh K. Tewari

Authors
  1. Prasanna Sooriakumaran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gerald Y. Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sonal Grover
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Atsushi Takenaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ashutosh K. Tewari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashutosh K. Tewari .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Winterthur, Winterthur, Switzerland

    Hubert John

  2. Department of Urology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

    Peter Wiklund

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sooriakumaran, P., Tan, G.Y., Grover, S., Takenaka, A., Tewari, A.K. (2018). Anatomical Aspects of the Neurovascular Bundle in Prostate Surgery. In: John, H., Wiklund, P. (eds) Robotic Urology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65864-3_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65864-3_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-65863-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-65864-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation