Home  |   Archive  |   Online Submission  |   News & Events  |   Subscribe  |   APFA  |   Society  |   Contact Us  |   中文版

Ahead of print
Authors' Accepted
Current Issue
Special Issues
Browse by Category

Manuscript Submission

Online Submission
Online Review
Instruction for Authors
Instruction for Reviewers
English Corner new!

About AJA

About AJA
Editorial Board
Contact Us

Resources & Services

Email alert

Download area

Copyright licence
EndNote style file
Manuscript word template
Guidance for AJA figures
    preparation (in English)

Guidance for AJA figures
    preparation (in Chinese)

Proof-reading for the

AJA Club (in English)
AJA Club (in Chinese)


Volume 15, Issue 4 (July 2013) 15, 513–517; 10.1038/aja.2012.157

A matched-pair comparison between bilateral intrafascial and interfascial nerve-sparing techniques in extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Tao Zheng, Xu Zhang, Xin Ma, Hong-Zhao Li, Jiang-Pin Gao, Wei Cai, Jun Dong, Guang-Fu Chen, Bao-Jun Wang, Tao-Ping Shi, Er-Lin Song, Wei-Hao Chen and Qing-Bo Huang

Department of Urology, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Military Postgraduate Medical College, Beijing 100853, China

Correspondence: Dr X Zhang, (xzhang@foxmail.com)

Received 10 September 2012; Revised 11 November 2012; Accepted 4 December 2012; Advance online publication 27 May 2013


The aim of this study was to validate the advantages of the intrafascial nerve-sparing technique compared with the interfascial nerve-sparing technique in extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. From March 2010 to August 2011, 65 patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) underwent bilateral intrafascial nerve-sparing extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. These patients were matched in a 1∶2 ratio to 130 patients with localized PCa who had undergone bilateral interfascial nerve-sparing extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy between January 2008 and August 2011. Operative data and oncological and functional results of both groups were compared. There was no difference in operative data, pathological stages and overall rates of positive surgical margins between the groups. There were 9 and 13 patients lost to follow-up in the intrafascial group and interfascial group, respectively. The intrafascial technique provided earlier recovery of continence at both 3 and 6 months than the interfascial technique. Equal results in terms of continence were found in both groups at 12 months. Better rates of potency at 6 months and 12 months were found in younger patients (age ≤65 years) and overall patients who had undergone the intrafascial nerve-sparing extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Biochemical progression-free survival rates 1 year postoperatively were similar in both groups. Using strict indications, compared with the interfascial nerve-sparing technique, the intrafascial technique provided similar operative outcomes and short-term oncological results, quicker recovery of continence and better potency. The intrafascial nerve-sparing technique is recommended as a preferred approach for young PCa patients who are clinical stages cT1 to cT2a and have normal preoperative potency.

Keywords: continence; interfascial nerve-sparing; intrafascial nerve-sparing; laparoscopic radical prostatectomy; potency; prostate cancer (PCa)

PDF | PDF | 中文摘要 |

Browse:  3308
Asian Journal of Andrology CN 31-1795/R ISSN 1008-682X  Copyright © 2023  Shanghai Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Sciences.  All rights reserved.