Advanced Reconstruction of Vesicourethral Support (ARVUS) during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: first independent evaluation and review of other factors influencing 1 year continence outcomes.

PURPOSE: Anterior and posterior reconstructions of pelvic structures are used during a robot-assisted radical prostatectomy to obtain better continence outcomes. This study was conducted to evaluate the Advanced Reconstruction of Vesicourethral Support (ARVUS), a novel postprostatectomy reconstruction technique. METHODS: The study was designed as a prospective, controlled, partially randomized and blinded experiment. The statistical analysis was based on the generalized linear modeling (GLM) framework with random effects: the logit link was used to model the probability of achieving continence and the logarithmic link was used to evaluate the overall score of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form (ICIQ-SF). The significance of the fixed effects and all possible two-way interactions was tested using the critical level of 0.05. RESULTS: The probability of achieving the continence significantly depends on the neurovascular bundle sparing (p < 0.001) and the time after the surgery (p < 0.001). Analogously, the expected ICIQ-SF score significantly depends on the nerve-sparing status (p = 0.035) and the time after the surgery (p < 0.001). No statistically significant difference between the unilateral or bilateral nerve sparing was found. The ARVUS technique seems to perform slightly worse with respect to the expected continence, but this difference is within the margins of random fluctuations (p = 0.715). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates a significant positive association between the nerve-sparing approach and the patient's continence, however, regardless of the unilateral or bilateral approach. In terms of the continence rate, no statistically significant benefits of ARVUS were observed.

Prostate cancer - the role of magnetic resonance imaging.

BACKGROUND: This article reviews the potential of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in prostate cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Systematic scan of Pubmed, Ovid, Medline, Elsevier search engines was used, additional information was found through bibliographic review of relevant articles. Results. Substantial progress has been made in the imaging of prostate cancer in MR imaging, as well as in advanced MR spectroscopy. CONCLUSIONS: MRI is a non-invasive and direct imaging modality useful for cancer staging, therapy response, detection of recurrence and guided biopsy in previous negative biopsies. MRI with 3.0T system, whole-body MRI, dynamic contrast enhanced MRI, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and MR spectroscopy (MRS) have improved tumor staging, assessment of tumor volume, aggressiveness or recurrence. Implementation of endorectal/phased array superficial MRI findings on 1.5 or 3.0T systems into nomograms for prostate pretreatment prediction is warranted. Surface phasedarray coil MRI accurately defines prostate cancer with elevated risk of extraprostatic disease.