A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Retrograde versus antegrade nerve sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: which is better for achieving early functional recovery? | LitMetric

Background: Although the retrograde approach to nerve sparing (NS) aimed at maximizing NS during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has been described, its significant benefits compared to the antegrade approach have not yet been investigated.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of NS approaches on perioperative, pathologic, and functional outcomes.

Design, Setting, And Participants: Five hundred one potent (Sexual Health Inventory for Men [SHIM] score >21) men underwent bilateral full NS and were followed up for a minimum of 1 yr. After propensity score matching, 344 patients were selected and were then categorized into two groups.

Surgical Procedure: RARP with antegrade NS (n=172) or RARP with retrograde NS (n=172).

Outcome Measurements And Statistical Analysis: Functional outcomes were assessed using validated questionnaires. Multivariable logistic regression models were applied.

Results And Limitations: Positive margin rates were similar (11.1% vs 6.9%; p=0.192), and no correlation with the NS approach was found on regression analysis. At 3, 6, and 9 mo, the potency rate was significantly higher in the retrograde approach (65% vs 80.8% and 72.1% vs 90.1% and 85.3% vs 92.9%, respectively). The multivariable model indicated that the NS approach was an independent predictor for potency recovery at 3, 6, and 9 mo, along with age, gland size, and hyperlipidemia. After adjusting for these predictors, the hazard ratio (HR) for the retrograde relative to the antegrade approach was 2.462 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.482-4.089; p=0.001) at 3, 4.024 (95% CI, 2.171-7.457; p<0.001) at 6, and 2.145 (95% CI, 1.019-4.514; p=0.044) at 9 mo. Regarding continence, the recovery rates at each time point and the mean time to regaining it were similar, and the method of NS had no effect on multivariable analysis. The absence of randomization is a major limitation of this study.

Conclusions: In patients with normal erectile function who underwent bilateral full NS, a retrograde NS approach facilitated early recovery of potency compared to that with an antegrade NS approach without compromising cancer control.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.09.051DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

nerve sparing
8
robot-assisted radical
8
radical prostatectomy
8
retrograde approach
8
antegrade approach
8
approach
6
retrograde
5
retrograde versus
4
antegrade
4
versus antegrade
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!