Posterior muscolofascial reconstruction after radical prostatectomy : a systematic review of the literature

Context: In 2001, Rocco et al. described a surgical technique whose aim was the reconstruction of the posterior musculofascial plate after radical prostatectomy (RP) to improve early return to urinary continence. Since then, many surgeons have applied this technique-either as it was described or with some modification-to open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted RP. Objective: To review the outcomes reported in comparative studies analysing the influence of reconstruction of the posterior aspect of the rhabdosphincter after RP. The main outcome evaluated was urinary continence at 3-7 d, 30-45 d, 90 d, 180 d, and 1 yr after catheter removal. Evidence acquisition: A systematic review of the literature was performed in November 2011, searching the Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. A "freetext'' protocol using the terms posterior reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter, posterior rhabdosphincter, and early continence was applied. Studies published only as abstracts and reports from meetings were not included in this review. One thousand seven records were retrieved from the Medline database, 1541 from the Embase database, 1357 from the Scopus database, and 1041 from the Web of Science database. The authors reviewed the records to identify studies comparing cohorts of patients who underwent RP with or without restoration of the posterior aspect of the rhabdosphincter. Only papers evaluating use of this technique as the only technical modification among the groups were included. A cumulative analysis was conducted using Review Manager v. 5.1 software (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). Evidence synthesis: Eleven studies were identified in the literature search, including two randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which were negative studies. The cumulative analysis of comparative studies showed that reconstruction of the posterior musculofascial plate improves early return of continence within the first 30 d after RP (p = 0.004), while continence rates 90 d after surgery are not affected by use of the reconstruction technique. The statistical significance of the reconstruction seems to decrease when higher continence rates are reported. Use of posterior rhabdosphincter reconstruction does not seem to be related to positive surgical margin (PSM) rates or with complications like acute urinary retention (AUR) and bladder neck stricture (BNS). Some studies suggested lower anastomotic leakage rates with the posterior musculofascial plate reconstruction technique. Conclusions: The role of reconstruction of the posterior musculofascial plate in terms of earlier continence recovery is encouraging but still controversial. Methodological flaws and poor surgical standardisation seem to be the major causes. In two RCTs and one parallel (not randomised) group trial, posterior rhabdosphincter reconstruction offered no significant advantage for return of early continence after RP. No significant complications related to the posterior musculofascial plate reconstruction technique have been reported so far. A multicentre RCT is necessary to clarify the possible role of the technique in terms of earlier continence recovery.