Different Nerve-Sparing Techniques during Radical Prostatectomy and Their Impact on Functional Outcomes

Abstract

The purpose of this narrative review is to describe the different nerve-sparing techniques applied during radical prostatectomy and document their functional impact on postoperative outcomes. We performed a PubMed search of the literature using the keywords “nerve-sparing”, “techniques”, “prostatectomy” and “outcomes”. Other potentially eligible studies were retrieved using the reference list of the included studies. Nerve-sparing techniques can be distinguished based on the fascial planes of dissection (intrafascial, interfascial or extrafascial), the direction of dissection (retrograde or antegrade), the timing of the neurovascular bundle dissection off the prostate (early vs. late release), the use of cautery, the application of traction and the number of the neurovascular bundles which are preserved. Despite this rough categorisation, many techniques have been developed which cannot be integrated in one of the categories described above. Moreover, emerging technologies have entered the nerve-sparing field, making its future even more promising. Bilateral nerve-sparing of maximal extent, athermal dissection of the neurovascular bundles with avoidance of traction and utilization of the correct planes remain the basic principles for achieving optimum functional outcomes. Given that potency and continence outcomes after radical prostatectomy are multifactorial endpoints in addition to the difficulty in their postoperative assessment and the well-documented discrepancy existing in their definition, safe conclusions about the superiority of one technique over the other cannot be easily drawn. Further studies, comparing the different nerve-sparing techniques, are necessary.