Posterior Urethrovesical Anastomotic Reconstruction in Comparison to Conventional Urethrovesical Anastomosis

Each modality of prostate cancer treatment has the propensity to lead to negative outcomes on quality of life to varying degrees. It is our responsibility to incorporate into our practices the most beneficial treatment regimens that render patients' cancer-free while minimizing potential treatment-related adverse outcomes, including incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction are the two most well described complications of radical prostatectomy with observed rates of 8.4% and 59.9%, respectively. Delayed recovery of urinary continence following radical prostatectomy (RP) is a well-known entity. Numerous contributing factors have been identified for post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI), including both patient (age, body mass index, membranous urethral length, prostate volume, pre-existing lower urinary tract symptoms, and oncologic factors) and surgeon characteristics (experience, technique). In a systematic review a meta-analysis using a no pad or a single safety pad definition, Ficcara and colleagues showed that the 12-month urinary incontinence rates can range from 8% to 11%. As such, several reconstructive options have been incorporated into the contemporary RP to attempt to improve these outcomes. The anatomy of urethral-sphincteric vesico-prostatic complex is well-described, leading to attempts to perform reconstruction of the Denonvilliers' musculofascial plate during the urethrovesical anastomosis (UVA) at the time of RP. Performing a posterior reconstruction (PR) of the rhabdosphincter was first reported by Rocco et al. in 2006 during open retropubic RP, showing a 3, 30, and 90-day improvement in urinary continence post catheter removal. Posterior reconstruction urethrovesical anastomosis (PR-UVA) has been hypothesized to improve the integrity of the rhabdosphincter and potentially increase the functional urethral length. However, a recent systematic review evaluating the efficacy of PR-UVA showed no improvement in urinary continence at 1 week and 3, 6, and 12 months. Conflicting studies within the literature render an environment of clinical equipoise in this specific patient-related outcome. Our study objective was to address the true clinical benefit of the PR-UVA in a large prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT).