Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 391

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Nerve-Sparing Radical Prostatectomy: Evaluation of Results after 250 Patients

Catalona, William J., Bigg, Steven W.·1990·Journal of Urology

Abstract

To examine the efficacy of nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy in preserving sexual potency and urinary continence, and in providing complete tumor excision we analyzed the records of the first 250 consecutive patients with clinical stage A or B prostate cancer treated since this operation was adopted at our institution. Over-all, sexual potency was preserved in 71 of 112 patients (63%) who underwent bilateral nerve-sparing prostatectomy and 13 of 33 (39%) who underwent a unilateral nerve-sparing procedure with a minimum of 6 months of followup. Preservation of potency correlated with patient age (p equals 0.0035, chi-square) and was significantly (p less than 0.001, chi-square) higher in patients with pathologically organ-confined tumors (72%) than in those with pathologically extracapsular tumors (51%). Of 192 patients followed for at least 6 months 188 (98%) achieved urinary continence postoperatively. Over-all, apparent complete tumor excision as defined by organ-confined tumor with negative surgical margins and undetectable postoperative prostate specific antigen levels was achieved in 14 preoperatively potent patients (42%) who underwent a unilateral and 67 (59%) who underwent a bilateral nerve-sparing procedure. Completeness of tumor excision correlated with tumor stage. In approximately 45% of the patients incomplete tumor excision was owing to seminal vesicle and/or lymph node involvement or positive bladder neck margins that could not be attributed to the nerve-sparing modification. However, improper application of the nerve-sparing technique may have contributed in the others. We were unable to detect microscopic penetration of the capsule or distinguish between gross extracapsular tumor extension and periprostatic fibrosis at operation. We conclude that with proper application of nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy, potency can be preserved in the majority of patients without compromising the adequacy of tumor excision. The completeness of tumor excision appears to be determined primarily by the extent of the tumor. Therefore, patient selection is important. Patients with focal, well differentiated tumors are ideal candidates for a nerve-sparing procedure, while those with high volume, poorly differentiated tumors may be at a higher risk for positive surgical margins. The benefits of wide excision of the neurovascular bundles remain to be demonstrated formally.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)40013-9

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Catalona, W. J., & Bigg, S. W.
Venue
Journal of Urology
Published
1990-03
Volume
143
Issue
3
Pages
538-543
ISSN
  • 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-3792
OpenAlex
W2399030910
Cited by
391
References
0
FWCI
27.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.