Objective: To evaluate the impact on continence rate during 1-year follow-up of a preservation technique that included nonligation of the dorsal vascular complex and sparing of the puboprostatic ligaments and the endopelvic fascia during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.
Material and methods: Information from 30 patients who underwent the preservation technique was prospectively collected and compared with data from 60 patients who underwent the nonpreservation traditional technique. A single surgeon performed all procedures.
Results: Demographic and preoperative characteristics were similar. The mean patient age was 59 years in both groups. All patients were stage cT1c or cT2. Operative time was significantly lower in the preservation technique group (229.6 vs. 262.7 minutes, P < .001). There were no significant differences in intraoperative bleeding, discharge hemoglobin level, blood transfusion rate, length of hospitalization, and drop in the hemoglobin level. The probability of continence recovery was significantly higher in the preservation technique group than in the traditional technique group (hazard ratio = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.31-0.81). The continence rate (0 pads/day) for the preservation technique group versus the traditional technique group at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months was, respectively, 53.3% versus 30% (P = .031), 90% versus 45% (P < .001), 90% versus 63.3% (P = .008), and 96.6% versus 78.3% (P = .024). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding potency and oncologic outcomes.
Conclusion: Nonligation of the dorsal vascular complex and preservation of the puboprostatic ligaments and the endopelvic fascia improved urinary continence compared with the traditional nonpreservation technique, with no impact in terms of bleeding and oncologic outcomes.
Cite this article as: Gaona J, Zuluaga MM, Flórez DH, et al. Dorsal vascular complex nonligation method and preservation of puboprostatic ligaments and endopelvic fascia during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Effect on continence. Turk J Urol. 2022;48(5):331-338.