Abstract
Nerve sparing (NS) is a surgical technique to optimize functional outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP). However, it is not recommended in high risk (HR) cases because of the risk of a positive surgical margin that may increase the risk of cancer recurrence. In the last two decades there has been a change of perspective to the effect that in well-selected cases NS could be an oncologically safe option with better functional outcomes. Therefore, we aim to compare the functional outcomes and oncological safety of NS during RP in men with HR disease. A total of 1340 patients were included in this analysis, of which 12% (n = 158) underwent non-NSRP and 39% (n = 516) and 50% (n = 666) uni- and bilateral NSRP, respectively. We calculated a propensity score and used inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to balance the baseline characteristics of Pca patients undergoing non-NSRP and those having uni- and bilateral NSRP, respectively. NS improved functional outcomes; after IPTW, only 3% of patients having non-NSRP reached complete erectile function recovery (without erectile aid) at 24 months, whereas 22% reached erectile function recovery (with erectile aid), while 87% were continent. Unilateral NS increased the probability of functional recovery in all outcomes (OR 1.1 or 1.2, respectively), bilateral NS slightly more so (OR 1.1 to 1.4). NSRP did not impact the risk of any recurrence (HR 0.99, 95%CI 0.73-1.34, p = 0.09), and there was no difference in survival for men who underwent NSRP (HR 0.65, 95%CI 0.39-1.08). There was no difference in cancer-specific survival (0.56, 95%CI 0.29-1.11). Our study found that NSRP significantly improved functional outcomes and can be safely performed in carefully selected patients with HR-PCa without compromising long term oncological outcomes.