Skip to main content
Download PDF

Is there any difference in urinary continence between bilateral and unilateral nerve sparing during radical prostatectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

World Journal of Surgical Oncology volume 22, Article number: 66 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Context

In men with prostate cancer, urinary incontinence is one of the most common long-term side effects of radical prostatectomy (RP). The recovery of urinary continence in patients is positively influenced by preserving the integrity of the neurovascular bundles (NVBs). However, it is still unclear if bilateral nerve sparing (BNS) is superior to unilateral nerve sparing (UNS) in terms of post-RP urinary continence. The aim of this study is to systematically compare the differences in post-RP urinary continence outcomes between BNS and UNS.

Methods

The electronic databases of PubMed and Web of Science were comprehensively searched. The search period was up to May 31, 2023. English language articles comparing urinary continence outcomes of patients undergoing BNS and UNS radical prostatectomy were included. Meta-analyses were performed to calculate pooled relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% confidence intervals for urinary continence in BNS and UNS groups at selected follow-up intervals using a random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses were performed in prospective studies and robotic-assisted RP studies.

Results

A meta-analysis was conducted using data from 26,961 participants in fifty-seven studies. A meta-analysis demonstrated that BNS improved the urinary continence rate compared to UNS at all selected follow-up points. RRs were 1.36 (1.14–1.63; p = 0.0007) at ≤ 1.5 months (mo), 1.28 (1.08–1.51; p = 0.005) at 3–4 mo, 1.12 (1.03–1.22; p = 0.01) at 6 mo, 1.08 (1.05–1.12; p < 0.00001) at 12 mo, and 1.07 (1.00-1.13; p = 0.03) at ≥ 24 mo, respectively. With the extension of the follow-up time, RRs decreased from 1.36 to 1.07, showing a gradual downward trend. Pooled estimates were largely heterogeneous. Similar findings were obtained through sensitivity analyses of prospective studies and robotic-assisted RP studies.

Conclusion

The findings of this meta-analysis demonstrate that BNS yields superior outcomes in terms of urinary continence compared to UNS, with these advantages being sustained for a minimum duration of 24 months. It may be due to the real effect of saving the nerves involved. Future high-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Introduction

Globally, prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common cancer and the fifth leading cause of cancer death among men in 2020, with approximately 1,414,259 new cases and 375,000 deaths [1, 2]. Radical prostatectomy (RP) is one of the gold standard treatments for patients diagnosed with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer. It is widely acknowledged that urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction are significant causes of low quality of life in many surgical men [2, 3]. At 12 months (mo), 16% of post-RP men are incontinent (using a no-pad definition) [4]. The reported potency rates following robot-assisted RP are highly variable, ranging from 54–90% [5]. Long-term urinary incontinence has been linked to a number of complex issues in individuals with prostate cancer, such as obsessive-compulsive about restroom locations and preventing leaks, as well as feelings of shame, helplessness, and uncleanliness when control is compromised [6].

In RP, different surgical approaches (open, laparoscopic, or robotic-assisted) are used, but postoperative continence is mainly determined by surgical technique, including preservation techniques and reconstructing techniques [2, 7]. In general, the retention of various structures like the neurovascular bundles (NVBs) and bladder neck aids in the control of urination [8]. The preservation of NVBs during RP has been shown to lead to an earlier return of continence [6, 9]. Recent meta-analyses reported that patients who had any nerve sparing (NS) surgery (i.e., bilateral nerve sparing, unilateral nerve sparing, or unspecified) had significantly better continence outcomes compared to those who had non-nerve sparing surgery [3, 6, 9]. Furthermore, Reeves et al. [6] demonstrated that there was only a statistically significant difference in continence outcomes between bilateral nerve sparing (BNS) and unilateral nerve sparing (UNS) at short-term follow-up (≤ 1.5 mo). However, Nguyen et al. [3] indicated that lower rates of urinary incontinence were significantly observed with BNS compared to UNS at 1 year. If sparing two-sided NVBs has a real advantage in postoperative urinary continence, then preservation of continence should be an independent indication for BNS, which will be crucial for clinical practice. Until now, data concerning bilateral vs. unilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy in urinary continence has been widely reported and the results are controversial.

In this research, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether there were differences in urinary continence outcomes after RP surgery between BNS and UNS in both short-term and long-term follow-up. The hypothesis posits that adopting a BNS approach may mitigate the incidence of urinary incontinence.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. The protocol for this study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022378340, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails).

Search strategy and eligibility criteria

To identify potentially relevant studies, searches were conducted in the PubMed and Web of Science electronic databases on May 31, 2023. Based on the absence of a formal description of NS surgery before 1982, the search was limited to studies published after that time.

We included studies reporting the outcomes of urinary continence in men treated for PCa with a BNS RP (intervention) and a UNS RP (control). Specifically, this review included retrospective and prospective studies that evaluated the comparison of urinary incontinence outcomes between UNS and BNS. Cross-sectional studies and observational studies without a control group (i.e., single-cohort studies) were not included. The present study did not attempt to analyze more specific or alternative types of nerve sparing, such as intra/interfascial versus standard, risk-stratified NS, or sural nerve grafting. We did not exclude studies based on surgical approaches such as open RP (ORP), laparoscopic RP (LRP), or robotic-assisted RP (RARP). In the search, the following terms were used: [“nerve sparing”] AND [“prostatectomy”] AND [“unilateral “OR “bilateral”]. The above keywords are searched using “all fields”. See Additional files 1 and  2 for detailed search strategies.

A meta-analysis of relevant prospective and retrospective studies with sufficient data was conducted. The scope of the review according to the PICO process (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) is as follows: P-patients with prostate cancer; I- radical prostatectomy with BNS; C-radical prostatectomy with UNS; O-urinary continence outcomes. The search was limited to English-language publications. To identify additional potentially relevant studies, we manually searched the reference lists of relevant publications and reviews. When data is duplicated, more recent or comprehensive studies are preferred.

Outcome

Postoperative urinary continence was the primary outcome of this systematic review and meta-analysis. Continence rates from included studies were pooled in this meta-analysis. We investigate the effect of BNS versus UNS on continence rates at selected follow-up intervals including ≤ 1.5 mo, 3–4 mo, 6 mo, 12 mo, and ≥ 24 mo.

Study selection and data extraction

Two authors screened the search results (titles and abstracts), and any disagreements were resolved by consensus. In line with the previously outlined selection criteria, the full texts of all potentially relevant publications were retrieved for review.

Data extracted involved patient age, sample size, continence definition, and surgical approach. To conduct the meta-analysis, the total number of participants and events were extracted (defined as a number of continent men). Raw numbers can also be calculated based on hazard ratios, relative risks, or odds ratios results. Any differences of opinion regarding data extraction were resolved through discussion and, if necessary, consultation with a third author to reach an agreement.

Synthesis of results and statistical analysis

The risk of bias in each study was independently evaluated by two authors according to the method published in the study of Reeves et al. [6]. This evaluation covered baseline continence, outcome assessment (the definition of urinary continence in each paper), comparability of groups (comparison of clinical information including age, tumor stage, and Gleason classification), NS assessment (details of NS surgical procedures), surgical technique variations (additional surgical procedures, such as puboprostatic ligaments preservation, bladder neck reconstruction and posterior rhabdosphincter reconstruction) and other issues like unexplained loss to follow-up and selective outcome reporting. Each comparison was measured as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval. Recovery of continence is more likely in the intervention group if the RR > 1.0.

Results of each study were grouped by type of NS (BNS, or UNS), as well as stratified by the timing of outcome reporting. Based on all available results in included studies, the outcome timing categories are ≤ 1.5 mo, 3–4 mo, 6 mo, 12 mo, and ≥ 24 mo. A Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was used to calculate pooled.

RRs for each time category. The I2 statistic (I2 ≥ 50%) and chi-square test (p ≤ 0.10) were used to assess heterogeneity.

Sensitivity analysis was conducted for studies that used a prospective design or prospectively collected data. At the same time, a sensitivity analysis of RARP studies was also conducted. Moreover, due to few studies, it is unlikely that separate sub-analyses could be performed based on the type of procedure (e.g., robotic-assisted RP versus other RP) and urinary continence definition (e.g., no pad vs. other).

To assess the risk of publication bias, funnel plots and the Egger test of funnel plot symmetry were generated for all primary outcomes. The Egger test is based on linear regression of the intervention effect estimate against its standard error weighted by the inverse of the intervention effect estimate’s variance. Examine potential publication bias through visual examination of funnel plots. Importantly, the significant publication bias is indicated by a p-value < 0.05. RevMan5.3 and STATA 12 software were used to perform all statistical analyses and generate forest plots.

Results

Study selection and characteristics

Our search yielded 1249 unique records. Ultimately, fifty-seven studies were included for quantitative synthesis. A total of forty-six prospective longitudinal cohort studies [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55] and eleven retrospective cohort studies [56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66] were included in this review (Table 1). The study sample size ranged from 15 to 2019 participants, with a total of 26,961 patients included in the final analysis. A series of studies were conducted between 1997 and 2023. Most patients included in the studies were undergoing RARP. Some studies used open surgery (retropubic or perineal) or extraperitoneal laparoscopic surgery. About 90% of the research originated from Europe and the United States. The demographic data of fifty-seven patient-series were comparable, with an average age range of 51–69 years and an average follow-up range of immediately after catheter removal to > 60 mo. The most common definition of urinary continence in included studies was no pad use.

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies
Full size table

Assessment of methodology of included studies

Because the BNS/UNS group stratification characteristics were not fully described in most of the included studies, the baseline imbalance cannot be determined. In the case of the data provided, selection bias was evident. Patients who underwent the BNS procedure were more likely to have younger ages, lower Gleason scores, better baseline sexual function, and a favorable clinical stage. A few studies also adjusted for age, comorbidities, and history of lower abdominal surgery when calculating RRs. Indeed, urinary continence outcomes may be influenced by various confounding factors, including age, body mass index, prior surgical history, prostate volume, membranous urethral length, tumor staging and grading, and surgeon experience. However, despite the lack of thorough characterization of NVB preservation, even in patients with low-risk prostate cancer, its implementation was associated with a higher risk of cancer at the margins of the excised tissue [67].

Baseline continence was seldom reported. In several studies, there was no urinary incontinence reported before surgery. Several other studies have reported similar baseline continence scores in the comparison groups.

Few studies have described how to define or record the NS status. In one study, it is stated that > 70% of the bundles preserved in situ can be regarded as NS [18]. Several studies describe retrospective reviews of surgical reports to determine NS status. Some studies directly describe NS using interfascial, extrafascial, or intrafascial techniques. At the same time, some of the studies were conducted concurrently with the preservation of the puboprostatic ligament or bladder neck reconstruction.

The assessment of results was variable. Most studies used the definition of no-pad for continence. Few studies used validated instruments to determine incontinence status. Even when a validated tool was used, it was often unclear who submitted the questionnaire and whether the assessor was blinded. Potential selective outcome reporting or unexplained loss to follow-up was apparent in many studies (Additional file 3).

Urinary continence outcomes

Patients who underwent the BNS procedure had significantly better continence outcomes compared to those who underwent the UNS procedure. RRs were 1.36 (1.14–1.63; p = 0.0007) at ≤ 1.5 mo, 1.28 (1.08–1.51; p = 0.005) at 3–4 mo, 1.12 (1.03–1.22; p = 0.01) at 6 mo, 1.08 (1.05–1.12; p < 0.00001) at 12 mo and 1.07 (1.00-1.13; p = 0.03) at ≥ 24 mo. Notably, the RRs decreased gradually as the follow-up time extended. Figures 1 and 2 showed the meta-analysis of urinary continence outcomes for BUS compared to UNS at selected follow-up points.

Fig. 1
figure 1

a Forest plot of continence rates for bilateral nerve sparing (BNS) versus unilateral nerve sparing (UNS) at ≤ 1.5 mo. b Forest plot of continence rates for bilateral nerve sparing (BNS) versus unilateral nerve sparing (UNS) at 3–4 mo. c Forest plot of continence rates for bilateral nerve sparing (BNS) versus unilateral nerve sparing (UNS) at 6 mo

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

a Forest plot of continence rates for bilateral nerve sparing (BNS) versus unilateral nerve sparing (UNS) at 12 mo. b Forest plot of continence rates for bilateral nerve sparing (BNS) versus unilateral nerve sparing (UNS) at ≥ 24 mo

Full size image

Sensitivity analysis revealed consistent overall results when prospective studies or RARP studies were considered alone. The RRs of BNS compared to UNS in prospective studies at ≤ 1.5 mo, 3–4 mo, 6 mo, 12 mo and ≥ 24 mo were 1.47 (1.05–2.04; p = 0.02), 1.33 (1.07–1.66; p = 0.01), 1.12 (1.02–1.23; p = 0.01), 1.09 (1.04–1.13; p < 0.0001) and 1.07 (1.00-1.14; p = 0.06), respectively (Additional files 4 and 5). The RRs of BNS compared to UNS in RARP patients at ≤ 1.5 mo, 3–4 mo, 6 mo, 12 mo and ≥ 24 mo were 1.47 (1.06–2.03; p = 0.02), 1.35 (1.00-1.81; p = 0.05), 1.14 (1.03–1.26; p = 0.01), 1.11 (1.05–1.16; p < 0.0001) and 1.09 (1.00-1.18; p = 0.04), respectively (Additional files 6 and 7).

Heterogeneity and publication bias

Clinical and methodological inconsistencies were apparent in all included studies. There were significant differences in participant characteristics, including baseline urinary continence and age. Variations in surgical technique, such as preserving of the bladder neck, sparing of puboprostatic ligament, and posterior reconstruction, also varied from study to study or were not described in detail. Furthermore, some studies restricted surgery to high-volume surgeons or surgeons with a minimum level of expertise. In addition, there were also differences in the methods used to assess postoperative incontinence status. In general, high inter-study heterogeneity was observed at each time point of urinary continence. Consequently, a random-effects model was utilized in the meta-analyses. Statistical analysis of funnel plot asymmetry using Egger linear regression revealed no convincing evidence of publication bias, except for the outcome at 6 mo and ≥ 24 mo. Outcomes at 6 mo and ≥ 24 mo showed publication bias, possibly due to a limited number of included studies. P values for publication bias were 0.06, 0.06, 0.01, 0.21, and 0.01 at ≤ 1.5mo, 3–4 mo, 6mo, 12mo, and ≥ 24 mo, respectively (Additional file 8).

Discussion

In this systematic review, we analyzed the differences in urinary continence between preserving bilateral NVBs and unilateral NVBs. The meta-analysis showed a correlation between BNS and improved urinary continence outcomes at all follow-up intervals, although this improvement gradually diminished with longer follow-up periods. Unlike the findings reported by Reeves et al. [6] and Nguyen et al. [3], which stated that BNS only exhibited good urinary continence at 1.5 months and 1 year after surgery, respectively.

The pathophysiology of post-RP urinary incontinence is not fully understood. Several factors are associated with the risk of postoperative urinary incontinence, including patient characteristics (e.g., body mass index, age, prostate volume, comorbidities) and provider-related factors (surgeon experience, skill, central volume, etc.) [68,69,70]. As far as the surgical methods are concerned, urethral sphincter preservation and nerve-sparing as well as the newly invented hood technique, can be effective in preventing post-RP urinary incontinence [70, 71]. Although most authors agree that the pudendal nerve innervates the rhabdosphincter, several anatomical studies have indicated abnormal intrapelvic somatic nerves to the sphincter [8]. Anatomic studies have also shown a partially intrapelvic route for the pudendal nerve branches that go on to innervate the urethral sphincter [7]. The impact of BNS on urinary continence outcomes may be explained by the preservation of these intrapelvic nerves to the rhabdosphincter. As the follow-up time prolongs, the decrease in the difference between BNS and UNS may be attributed to the compensation of other continence mechanisms, such as the pelvic floor musculature, bladder neck sparing, Retzius-sparing RARP and preservation of tissue around the urethra. The most common standard for BNS RP was the presence of low-risk disease [67]. The same but less stringent criteria were used to select patients for UNS: PSA < 10 ng/ml or GS ≤ 6 or normal DRE on the NS side, with or without biopsy core positive information [67]. The decision to perform BNS surgery in these individuals should be made on a case-by-case basis, considering risk stratification based on comprehensive clinical examination, biopsy findings, and imaging results. If BNS is appropriate from an oncologic standpoint, it should be taken into consideration as it might result in better potential for urinary continence following surgery. In addition, UNS can be selected for patients with intermediate- and high-risk diseases who need nerve preservation because its long-term urinary continence outcomes are comparable to those of BNS. Randomized controlled trials comparing BNS with UNS RP are unlikely to be designed for ethical reasons. In the future, to determine the best candidates for BNS RP and UNS RP, prospective multicenter trials with high methodological quality and long-term follow-up for patients with intermediate- and high-risk PCa are required. A deeper understanding of the risk factors for urinary continence may be achievable with sufficiently large sample sizes and multivariate analysis adjusted for specific confounders.

Even though this is the most thorough analysis comparing urinary continence outcomes of BNS to UNS during RP, various limitations must be taken into account when interpreting these data. This meta-analysis is compromised by the absence of randomized controlled trials. Prospective randomized controlled trials, however, are challenging to undertake because the nerve sparing technique may be modified during surgery based on the level of tumor involvement, intraoperative pathology, and other ethical considerations. If the intraoperative frozen pathological results indicate positive surgical margins when the patient undergoes planned BNS, the surgical method may be changed to UNS or NNS for the patient’s ethical consideration. Moreover, our study did not include studies that were not published or in English. Although Egger’s linear regression did not disclose any conclusive evidence of publication bias, assessing publication bias is inherently challenging when there are few studies included. There was significant heterogeneity among studies in terms of urinary continence, which we were unable to fully explain. Heterogeneity can be caused by a variety of factors, including age, prostate volume, membranous urethral length, tumor staging and grading, surgeon experience, and variations in surgical technique. Many studies did not provide enough information to allow for adjustments, and stratification of research outcomes based on surgeon experience, patient age, or other factors was not done. Additionally, variations in the definition of NS status could affect the outcomes. Intrafascial, interfascial, or extrafascial nerve preservation surgery can result in inconsistencies in urinary continence outcomes.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis demonstrates that BNS results in superior urinary continence outcomes compared to UNS in all selected postoperative follow-up periods. This superiority persists for ≥ 24 mo. We speculate that the preservation of the intrapelvic nerves supplying the rhabdosphincter may be the cause of this relationship. If BNS is deemed appropriate from an oncological perspective, it should be duly considered. High-quality cohort studies are recommended to corroborate the foregoing findings and additional research into the mechanisms of post-RP incontinence.

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kyriazis I, Spinos T, Tsaturyan A, et al. Different nerve-sparing techniques during radical prostatectomy and their impact on functional outcomes. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(7):1601.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nguyen LN, Head L, Witiuk K, et al. The risks and benefits of cavernous neurovascular bundle sparing during radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2017;198(4):760–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):405–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):418–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Reeves F, Preece P, Kapoor J, et al. Preservation of the neurovascular bundles is associated with improved time to continence after radical prostatectomy but not long-term continence rates: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015;68(4):692–704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bejrananda T, Takahara K, Sowanthip D, et al. Comparing pentafecta outcomes between nerve sparing and non nerve sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a propensity score-matched study. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):15835.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Heesakkers J, Farag F, Bauer RM, et al. Pathophysiology and contributing factors in postprostatectomy incontinence: a review. Eur Urol. 2017;71(6):936–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Morozov A, Barret E, Veneziano D, et al. A systematic review of nerve-sparing surgery for high-risk prostate cancer. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2021;73(3):283–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Albayrak S, Canguven O, Goktas C, et al. Radical perineal prostatectomy and early continence: outcomes after 120 cases. Int Braz J Urol. 2010;36(6):693–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Asimakopoulos AD, Topazio L, De Angelis M, et al. Retzius-sparing versus standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective randomized comparison on immediate continence rates. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(7):2187–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Avulova S, Zhao Z, Lee D, et al. The effect of nerve sparing status on sexual and urinary function: 3-Year results from the CEASAR study. J Urol. 2018;199(5):1202–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Berg KD, Thomsen FB, Hvarness H, et al. Early biochemical recurrence, urinary continence and potency outcomes following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Scand J Urol. 2014;48(4):356–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Berry T, Tepera C, Staneck D, et al. Is there correlation of nerve-sparing status and return to baseline urinary function after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy? J Endourol. 2009;23(3):489–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bhat KRS, Onol FF, Moschovas MC, et al. Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in young adults: age-stratified oncological and functional outcomes. J Robot Surg. 2022;16(5):1057–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Budaus L, Isbarn H, Schlomm T, et al. Current technique of open intrafascial nerve-sparing retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2009;56(2):317–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Burkhard FC, Kessler TM, Fleischmann A, et al. Nerve sparing open radical retropubic prostatectomy–does it have an impact on urinary continence? J Urol. 2006;176(1):189–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Choi WW, Freire MP, Soukup JR, et al. Nerve-sparing technique and urinary control after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2011;29(1):21–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Collette ERP, Klaver SO, Lissenberg-Witte BI, et al. Patient reported outcome measures concerning urinary incontinence after robot assisted radical prostatectomy: development and validation of an online prediction model using clinical parameters, lower urinary tract symptoms and surgical experience. J Robot Surg. 2021;15(4):593–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. D’altilia N, Mancini V, Falagario UG, et al. A matched-pair analysis after robotic and retropubic radical prostatectomy: a new definition of continence and the impact of different surgical techniques. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(18):4350.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Dalkin BL, Christopher BA, Shawler D. Health related quality of life outcomes after radical prostatectomy: attention to study design and the patient-based importance of single-surgeon studies. Urol Oncol. 2006;24(1):28–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. El-Hakim A, Al-Hathal N, Al-Qaoud T, et al. Novel uroflow stop test at time of catheter removal is a strong predictor of early urinary continence recovery following robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a pilot study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34(1):60–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Feng T, Heulitt G, Lee JJ, et al. Randomised comparison of techniques for control of the dorsal venous complex during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2020;126(5):586–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fossati N, Di Trapani E, Gandaglia G, et al. Assessing the impact of Surgeon experience on urinary continence recovery after Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: results of four high-volume Surgeons. J Endourol. 2017;31(9):872–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Geraerts I, Van Poppel H, Devoogdt N, et al. Prospective evaluation of urinary incontinence, voiding symptoms and quality of life after open and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2013;112(7):936–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hatiboglu G, Teber D, Tichy D, et al. Predictive factors for immediate continence after radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2016;34(1):113–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hinata N, Murakami G, Miyake H, et al. Urethral sphincter fatigue after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: descriptive questionnaire-based study and anatomic basis. Urology. 2014;84(1):144–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Holze S, Mende M, Healy KV, et al. Comparison of various continence definitions in a large group of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: a multicentre, prospective study. BMC Urol. 2019;19(1):70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Kim M, Park M, Pak S, et al. Integrity of the urethral sphincter complex, nerve-sparing, and long-term continence status after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5(5):823–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ko YH, Coelho RF, Chauhan S, et al. Factors affecting return of continence 3 months after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: analysis from a large, prospective data by a single surgeon. J Urol. 2012;187(1):190–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kohjimoto Y, Higuchi M, Yamashita S, et al. Bladder neck size and its association with urinary continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJUI Compass. 2023;4(2):181–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kovacik V, Maciak M, Balaz V, et al. Advanced Reconstruction of Vesicourethral Support (ARVUS) during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: first independent evaluation and review of other factors influencing 1 year continence outcomes. World J Urol. 2020;38(8):1933–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kowalczyk KJ, Huang AC, Hevelone ND, et al. Effect of minimizing tension during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy on urinary function recovery. World J Urol. 2013;31(3):515–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kung TA, Waljee JF, Curtin CM, et al. Interpositional nerve grafting of the prostatic plexus after radical prostatectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015;3(7):e452.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Lavigueur-Blouin H, Noriega AC, Valdivieso R, et al. Predictors of early continence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015;9(1–2):e93-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Lee DJ, Cheetham P, Badani KK. Predictors of early urinary continence after robotic prostatectomy. Can J Urol. 2010;17(3):5200–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Marien TP, Lepor H. Does a nerve-sparing technique or potency affect continence after open radical retropubic prostatectomy? BJU Int. 2008;102(11):1581–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Nandipati KC, Raina R, Agarwal A, et al. Nerve-sparing surgery significantly affects long-term continence after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2007;70(6):1127–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Novara G, Ficarra V, D’elia C, et al. Evaluating urinary continence and preoperative predictors of urinary continence after robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2010;184(3):1028–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Nyarangi-Dix JN, Tosev G, Damgov I, et al. Recovery of pad-free continence in elderly men does not differ from younger men undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for aggressive prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2020;38(2):351–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Pagliarulo V, Alba S, Gallone MF, et al. Athermal versus ultrasonic nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a comparison of functional and oncological outcomes. World J Urol. 2021;39(5):1453–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Pick DL, Osann K, Skarecky D, et al. The impact of cavernosal nerve preservation on continence after robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2011;108(9):1492–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Reichert M, Ploeger HM, Uhlig A, et al. Understanding long-term continence rates after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy - one-year follow-up on cognitive ability as a non-modifiable risk factor for post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence. Front Surg. 2022;9:1055880.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Rigatti L, Centemero A, Lughezzani G, et al. The relationship between continence and perineal body tone before and after radical prostatectomy: a pilot study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2012;31(4):513–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sammon JD, Sharma P, Trinh QD, et al. Predictors of immediate continence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2013;27(4):442–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Scarcia M, Zazzara M, Divenuto L, et al. Extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a high-volume surgical center experience. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2018;70(5):479–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Steineck G, Bjartell A, Hugosson J, et al. Degree of preservation of the neurovascular bundles during radical prostatectomy and urinary continence 1 year after surgery. Eur Urol. 2015;67(3):559–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Suardi N, Moschini M, Gallina A, et al. Nerve-sparing approach during radical prostatectomy is strongly associated with the rate of postoperative urinary continence recovery. BJU Int. 2013;111(5):717–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Talcott JA, Rieker P, Propert KJ, et al. Patient-reported impotence and incontinence after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89(15):1117–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Theissen L, Preisser F, Wenzel M, et al. Very early continence after radical prostatectomy and its influencing factors. Front Surg. 2019;6:60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Toren P, Alibhai SM, Matthew A, et al. The effect of nerve-sparing surgery on patient-reported continence post-radical prostatectomy. Can Urol Assoc J. 2009;3(6):465–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Tsikis ST, Nottingham CU, Faris SF. The relationship between incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic prostatectomy: are they mutually exclusive? J Sex Med. 2017;14(10):1241–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Tzou DT, Dalkin BL, Christopher BA, et al. The failure of a nerve sparing template to improve urinary continence after radical prostatectomy: attention to study design. Urol Oncol. 2009;27(4):358–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Van Der Poel HG, De Blok W, Joshi N, et al. Preservation of lateral prostatic fascia is associated with urine continence after robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2009;55(4):892–900.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Van Der Slot MA, Remmers S, Van Leenders G, et al. Urinary incontinence and sexual function after the introduction of NeuroSAFE in radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol Focus; 2023.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Chung JW, Kim SW, Kang HW, et al. Efficacy of modified radical prostatectomy technique for recovery of urinary incontinence in high-grade prostate cancer. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2020;72(5):605–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Fossa SD, Beyer B, Dahl AA, et al. Improved patient-reported functional outcomes after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy by using NeuroSAFE technique. Scand J Urol. 2019;53(6):385–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Greco F, Hoda MR, Wagner S, et al. Bilateral vs unilateral laparoscopic intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: evaluation of surgical and functional outcomes in 457 patients. BJU Int. 2011;108(4):583–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Hinata N, Bando Y, Chiba K, et al. Application of hyaluronic acid/carboxymethyl cellulose membrane for early continence after nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BMC Urol. 2019;19(1):25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Kadono Y, Ueno S, Kadomoto S, et al. Use of preoperative factors including urodynamic evaluations and nerve-sparing status for predicting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: nerve-sparing technique contributes to the reduction of postprostatectomy incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35(8):1034–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Lee S, Yoon CJ, Park HJ, et al. The surgical procedure is the most important factor affecting continence recovery after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. World J Mens Health. 2013;31(2):163–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Noel J, Mascarenhas A, Patel E, et al. Nerve spare robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy with amniotic membranes: medium term outcomes. J Robot Surg. 2022;16(5):1219–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Palisaar JR, Roghmann F, Brock M, et al. Predictors of short-term recovery of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2015;33(6):771–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Punnen S, Clint Cary K, Glass AS, et al. Autologous retro-pubic urethral sling: a novel, quick, intra-operative technique to improve continence after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Robot Surg. 2014;8(2):99–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Shikanov S, Desai V, Razmaria A, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy for elderly patients: probability of achieving continence and potency 1 year after surgery. J Urol. 2010;183(5):1803–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Wang JG, Huang J, Chin AI. RARP in high-risk prostate cancer: use of multi-parametric MRI and nerve sparing techniques. Asian J Androl. 2014;16(5):715–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Moris L, Gandaglia G, Vilaseca A, et al. Evaluation of oncological outcomes and data quality in studies assessing nerve-sparing versus non-nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy in nonmetastatic prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol Focus. 2022;8(3):690–700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Deng W, Chen R, Jiang X, et al. Independent factors affecting postoperative short-term urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Oncol. 2021;2021:9523442.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Sessa F, Nicoletti R, Pecoraro A, et al. Urinary continence recovery after robotic radical prostatectomy without anterior or posterior reconstruction: experience from a tertiary referral center. J Clin Med. 2023;12(4):1358.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Kasai T, Banno T, Nakamura K, et al. Duration and influencing factors of postoperative urinary incontinence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a Japanese Community Hospital: a single-center retrospective cohort study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(5):4085.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Schlomm T, Heinzer H, Steuber T, et al. Full functional-length urethral sphincter preservation during radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2011;60(2):320–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 82072833 and No. 82272864 to Hao Ping).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, No1. Dongjiaominxiang Street, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China

    Peng Xiang, Zhen Du, Di Guan, Wei Yan, Mingdong Wang, Danyang Guo, Dan Liu, Yuexin Liu & Hao Ping

Authors
  1. Peng Xiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhen Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Di Guan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wei Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mingdong Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Danyang Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dan Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yuexin Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Hao Ping
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation was performed by P Xiang, Z Du, D Guan, M Wang, D Guo and W Yan. Data collection and analysis were performed by P Xiang, D Liu and H Ping. The first draft of the manuscript was written by P Xiang and H Ping. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: H Ping, Y Liu and P Xiang. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hao Ping.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was not needed because data were extracted from primary published studies in which informed consent was obtained by investigators.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xiang, P., Du, Z., Guan, D. et al. Is there any difference in urinary continence between bilateral and unilateral nerve sparing during radical prostatectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Onc 22, 66 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-024-03340-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-024-03340-6

Keywords

World Journal of Surgical Oncology

ISSN: 1477-7819

Contact us