Abstract：Objective To describe a technique of delayed ligature of the dorsal vasculature complex (DLDVC) for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy(LRP) and to evaluate its postoperative outcomes.Methods From January 2007 to June 2015,75 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy were retrospectively evaluated in the Jinhua Hospital of Zhejiang University. Their mean age was 63.7 (49-74) years, preoperative prostate specific antigen 13.0 μg /mL, Gleason score 6.8, preoperative prostate volume 56.8 mL, preoperative potency [international index of erectile 5(IIEF-5) score≥15 score]. TNM clinical stage: cT1 49 patients, 26 patients cT2. According to the hospital parity, they were randomly divided into DLDVC, SLDVC groups. No differences were found between the two groups in terms of preoperative prostate specific antigen values, Gleason score at biopsy, preoperative good potency (IIEF-5 score)and age(all P values>0.05).All patients were undergone LRP, including 33 patients (Group DLDVC) with DLDVC for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, 42 patients (Group SLDVC) with the technique of standard ligature of the dorsal vasculature complex (SLDVC) for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The two groups were compared for perioperative variables, positive surgical margin rate, postoperative urinary continence functional and potency (IIEF-5 score).Results No differences were found between the two groups in terms of operative times[(240±87)min vs.(220±74)min], blood loss[(410±92)mL vs. (370±79)mL], postoperative stay[(9.2±1.1)d vs. (9.4±1.3)d], histologic status, positive surgical margin [(21.2%(7/33) in group DLDVC vs. 16.7%(7/42) in group SLDVC](all P values>0.05). Follow-up was 21(6-53) months. In DLDVC, the continence rate was 60.6%(20/33), 78.8%(26/33) , 87.9%(29/33) and 93.9%(31/33) at immediately after catheter removal, 1, 3 and 6 months, respectively. In the SLDVC it was 23.8%(10/42), 54.8%(23/42) , 71.4%(30/42) and 90.5%(38/42) at immediately after catheter removal, 1, 3 and 6 months, respectively. The group DLDVC showed a significantly earlier recovery from incontinence compared with that in the group SLDVC at immediately after catheter removal and 1 month, (all P values<0.05). No differences were found between the two groups at 3 and 6 months (all P values>0.05). Regarding sexual function, at the postoperative 3, 6, 12 months, median IIEF-score was 8.4±7.2、9.1±7.3、14.4±7.1 in the group DLDVC, respectively, and in the group SLDVC it was 7.3±6.1、7.4±6.7、11.1±9.3 respectively. Baseline IIEF-score was reached by 38.1%(5/30) and 16.7%(5/30) at postoperative 12 months. There were no significant differences between the two groups(χ2=2.992, P>0.05).Conclusions This delayed ligature of the DVC after its section can contribute to early recovery of continence. It has little to do with postoperative erectile function recovery and will not affect the positive surgical margin rate of oncology.
Laird A, Fowler S, Good DW, et al. Contemporary practice and technique-related outcomes for radical prostatectomy in the UK: a report of national outcomes[J]. BJU Int, 2015, 115(5): 753-763. DOI:10.1111/bju.12866
[2]
G?zen AS, Akin Y, Ates M, et al. Impact of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy on clinical T3 prostate cancer: experience of a single centre with long-term follow-up[J]. BJU Int, 2015, 116(1): 102-108. DOI:10.1111/bju.12710
[3]
Alemozaffar M, Sanda M, Yecies D, et al. Benchmarks for operative outcomes of robotic and open radical prostatectomy: results from the health professionals follow-up study[J]. Eur Urol, 2015, 67(3): 432-438. DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.039
[4]
Papachristos A, Basto M, Te Marvelde L, et al. Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: an Australian single-surgeon series[J]. ANZ J Surg, 2015, 85(3): 154-158. DOI:10.1111/ans.12602
[5]
Riikonen J, Kaipia A, Petas A, et al. Initiation of robot-assisted radical prostatectomies in Finland: impact on centralization and quality of care[J]. Scand J Urol, 2016, 50(3): 149-154. DOI:10.3109/21681805.2016.1142471
Stolzenburg JU, Kallidonis P, Minh D, et al. Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: evolution of the technique and experience with 2400 cases[J]. J Endourol, 2009, 23(9): 1467-1472. DOI:10.1089/end.2009.0336
[8]
Tran SN, Wirth GJ, Mayor G, et al. Prospective evaluation of early postoperative male and female sexual function after radical prostatectomy with erectile nerves preservation[J]. Int J Impot Res, 2015, 27(2): 69-74. DOI:10.1038/ijir.2014.36
[9]
Walz J, Burnett AL, Costello AJ, et al. A critical analysis of the current knowledge of surgical anatomy related to optimization of cancer control and preservation of continence and erection in candidates for radical prostatectomy[J]. Eur Urol, 2010, 57(2): 179-192. DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2009.11.009
[10]
Al-Mamari SA, Quintens H, Mentine N, et al. RALP:comparison of the oncological and functional outcomes of the intrafascial and the interfascial approaches[J]. Prog Urol, 2015, 25(1) :54-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.purol.2014.08.237
[11]
Haga N, Ogawa S, Yabe M, et al. Factors contributing to early recovery of urinary continence analyzed by pre- and postoperative pelvic anatomical features at robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy[J]. J Endourol, 2015, 29(6): 683-690. DOI:10.1089/end.2014.0708
[12]
Takenaka A, Tewari AK. Anatomical basis for carrying out a state-of-the-art radical prostatectomy[J]. Int J Urol, 2012, 19(1): 7-19. DOI:10.1111/j.1442-2042.2011.02911.x
[13]
Palisaar JR, Roghmann F, Brock M, et al. Predictors of short-term recovery of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy[J]. World J Urol, 2015, 33(6): 771-779. DOI:10.1007/s00345-014-1340-3
[14]
Lei Y, Alemozaffar M, Williams SB, et al. Athermal division and selective suture ligation of the dorsal vein complex during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of technique and outcomes[J]. Eur Urol, 2011, 59(2): 235-243. DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2010.08.043
[15]
Sasaki H, Miki J, Kimura T, et al. Upfront transection and subsequent ligation of the dorsal vein complex during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy[J]. Int J Urol, 2010, 17(11): 960-961. DOI:10.1111/j.1442-2042.2010.02632.x
[16]
Tunc L, Akin Y, Gumustas H, et al. Detailed surgical anatomy of prostate: relationship between urethra and dorsal vein complex with apex[J]. Urol Int, 2016, 96(3): 260-267. DOI:10.1159/000443674
[17]
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[J]. BJU Int, 2011, 108(4): 583-587. DOI:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09836.x
[18]
Joseph JV, Rosenbaum R, Madeb R, et al. Robotic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: an alternative approach[J]. J Urol, 2006, 175(3 Pt 1): 945-950. DOI:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00340-X
[19]
Zorn KC, Gofrit ON, Orvieto MA, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: functional and pathologic outcomes with interfascial nerve preservation[J]. Eur Urol, 2007, 51(3): 755-762. DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.019
[20]
Busch J, Gonzalgo ML, Leva N, et al. Matched comparison of robot-assisted, laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy regarding pathologic and oncologic outcomes in obese patients[J]. World J Urol, 2015, 33(3): 397-402. DOI:10.1007/s00345-014-1326-1
[21]
Soares R, Di Benedetto A, Dovey Z, et al. Minimum 5-year follow-up of 1138 consecutive laparoscopic radical prostatectomies[J]. BJU Int, 2015, 115(4): 546-553. DOI:10.1111/bju.12887
2017, Vol. 22 
