Long-term function and oncologic outcomes following nerve-spare or wide resection during radical prostatectomy

Authors

  • Ameeta L. Nayak The Ottawa Hospital
  • Simon Pupulin University of Ottawa
  • Ahsas Nagee University of Ottawa
  • Luke T. Lavallée University of Ottawa
  • Ranjeeta Mallick Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
  • Anathea S. Flaman Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
  • Chris Morash Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
  • Ilias Cagiannos Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
  • Rodney H. Breau Ottawa Hospital Research Institute

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.9503

Keywords:

Radical prostatectomy, nerve-sparing, wide resection

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Nerve sparing during radical prostatectomy (RP) is associated with improved postoperative erectile function and urinary continence but may increase the risk of positive surgical margins. This study sought to compare the long-term outcomes of patients treated with nerve spare (NS) compared to wide resection (WR).

METHODS: A historical cohort of consecutive patients was reviewed. A standardized surgical approach of lobe-specific NS or WR was performed. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence (PSA ≥0.2 ng/mL) or receipt of postoperative radiation. Secondary outcomes included time to metastases, urinary continence, and erectile function.

RESULTS: Of 193 consecutive patients, 123 (63%) received bilateral NS, 36 (19%) received unilateral NS, and 34 (18%) bilateral WR. Patients undergoing any NS had lower preoperative PSA, tumor stage, and grade group compared to WR patients (all p<0.05). Adjusting for these variables, the risk of treatment failure (PSA ≥2 ng/mL or postoperative radiation) was increased in patients who underwent NS compared to WR (hazard ratio [HR] 2.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-4.83). Urinary continence recovered more quickly after NS, but by 24 months post-RP, this difference was not statistically significant (bilateral NS: risk ratio [RR] 1.10, 95% CI 0.95-1.30; unilateral NS: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.82-1.24). Postoperative erectile function was better in patients receiving unilateral or bilateral NS (unilateral: 21%, bilateral: 59%, WR: 0%).

CONCLUSIONS: NS during RP was associated with higher risk of treatment failure, but better functional outcomes compared to WR. These results indicate that NS presents a tradeoff of outcomes that must be matched to individual patient’s values and preferences.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2026-03-30

How to Cite

Nayak, A. L., Pupulin, S., Nagee, A., Lavallée, L. T., Mallick, R., Flaman, A. S., … Breau, R. H. (2026). Long-term function and oncologic outcomes following nerve-spare or wide resection during radical prostatectomy. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 20(8), 265–71. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.9503

Issue

Vol. 20 No. 8 (2026): CUAJ August

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.