title: Are early continence recovery and oncologic outcomes influenced by use of different devices in prostatic apex dissection during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy?
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Treatment of patients with prostate cancer has evolved considerably in the last decade, especially in terms of minimization of the negative impacts on erectile function and continence to ensure good quality of life for treated patients. New surgical devices, such as dissectors and hemostatic scalpels, allow precise definition of the surgical field with finer dissection of the anatomic structures, with subsequent reductions in operative times and better oncologic and functional outcomes. Although monopolar scissors (MS) are still widely used, radiofrequency (RF) and ultrasound (US) scalpels have been introduced recently in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). Despite the widespread use of these scalpels, however, few studies have compared these devices in terms of oncologic and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy. The present study aimed to prospectively assess the impact of MS, RF, and US scalpels on margin status at apex, and recovery of urinary continence and erectile function in patients undergoing extraperitoneal LRP.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 150 men were prospectively enrolled between September 2009 and April 2013 and postoperatively evaluated for continence and clinical factors.
  
  
  RESULTS
  There were no differences in terms of operative times (P=0.9433), blood loss (P=0.9681), apical margin positivity (P=0.3965) or postoperative hospital stay (P=0.9257) among the groups. Moreover, no differences in the functional outcome scores, as evaluated by the International Consultation on Incontinence self-administered Questionnaire, at 1, 3, and 6 months postsurgery were observed.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our study represents the first evaluation of continence recovery in LRP with respect to different devices used for prostatic apex dissection. We found that the oncologic, functional, and operative outcomes were similar between these different devices during LRP, with no scalpel demonstrating superiority in continence recovery.
authors.affiliation: 1 Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome , Faculty of Pharmacy and Medicine, Urology Unit ICOT, Latina, Italy .
authors.forename: Antonio L
authors.initials: AL
authors.lastname: Pastore
authors.forename: Giovanni
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Palleschi
authors.forename: Aurel
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Messas
authors.forename: Andrea
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Fuschi
authors.forename: Alessandro
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Zucchi
authors.forename: Elizabetta
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Costantini
authors.forename: Luigi
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Silvestri
authors.forename: Vincenzo
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Petrozza
authors.forename: Antonio
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Carbone
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D004210:Dissection / Q000379:methods; D006801:Humans; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000379:methods*; D007902:Length of Stay / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D061646:Operative Time; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000517:prevention & control*; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011468:Prostatectomy / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000601:surgery*; D011788:Quality of Life; D020127:Recovery of Function; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014549:Urinary Incontinence / Q000517:prevention & control*