Athermal versus ultrasonic nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a comparison of functional and oncological outcomes.

Purpose: Many urologists emphasize the concept of heat-related damage suggesting the avoidance of any energy to perform nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. At our institution, both athermal and ultrasonic dissection have been used over the last years to perform a nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (NSLRP). In this study, we compare functional and oncological outcomes of the two procedures.
Methods: All charts from patients undergoing NSLRP between January 2009 and June 2015 were reviewed. The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) was recorded preoperatively and 3, 12 and 24 months after surgery; continence was recorded at 3 and 12 months; PSA was recorded at last follow-up. Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed to assess the association of variables with functional and oncological outcomes.
Results: Ultrasonic NSLRP was used for 120 patients, while athermal NSLRP on 111. The impact of the cutting technique on erection recovery was different at 3 months, favoring athermal dissection (p = 0.002); however, significance was lost at 12 (p = 0.09) and 24 (p = 0.14) months. Continence recovery was comparable at 3 (p = 0.1) and 12 (p = 0.2) months; the rate of positive surgical margins and PSA recurrence were also similar (p = 0.2 and p = 0.06, respectively). At univariate analysis, age, Gleason sum, nerve-sparing laterality, and extension (intra- vs interfascial) were associated with overall erection recovery; only age and nerve-sparing laterality were independent predictors. Age and preoperative TRUS prostate volume were associated with continence recovery, both at uni- and multivariate analysis.
Conclusions: The use of an ultrasonic device compared to athermal dissection during NSLRP does not affect long-term potency, nor continence and early biochemical recurrence.