EURURO Vol. 71 No. 5

829 844

anastomosis). Sutherland et al. reported no improve-
ment for posterior reconstruction and interestingly found
better results in the control group, even in terms of pad
weight (24-h pad test).
Our functional reconstruction technique was associated
with few complications, and these were similar in both
groups. There was no difference between the groups in
detrusor overactivity, which was seen in four patients. The
ARVUS technique did not affect this condition; furthermore,
the question of whether RP causes detrusor overactivity has
not yet been resolved . These data, together with clinical
observations, have led us to abandon the standard
technique and continue with our new method. This new
technique has now been performed on 400 patients at our
institution (by 3 console surgeons) and is also used at the
Department of Urology, Banska Bystrica University Hospi-
tal, Slovakia, with similar promising results (unpublished
data, personal communication with V. Balaz).
Despite the prospective randomised trial design, limita-
tions include the small sample size, the single-institution
setting, and only one surgeon performing the surgeries. It is
therefore debatable whether these results are reproducible.
On the basis of our experience, we believe that any robotic
surgeon who is trained to perform radical prostatectomy
could use this method.
5. Conclusions
Our ARVUS technique yielded significantly better results in
terms of urinary continence than the standard technique for
posterior reconstruction. ARVUS proved to be safe and
feasible in terms of NS procedures. Our technique is therefore
suitable for most patients and reflects clinical practice, as
most RARPs are performed using an NS technique with
preservation of erectile function. Even though the data need
to be validated, the technique described is simple and
reproducible and could be routinely used for RARP.
Author contributions: Vladimir Student had full access to all the data in
the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the
accuracy of the data analysis.
Study concept and design: Student.
Acquisition of data: Student Jr., Buresova, Hartmann.
Analysis and interpretation of data: Student, Student Jr., Vidlar, Grepl.
Drafting of the manuscript: Student, Student Jr.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content:
Hartmann, Buresova, Grepl, Vidlar.
Statistical analysis: Grepl.
Obtaining funding: None.
Administrative, technical, or material support: None.
Supervision: Student.
Other: None.
Financial disclosures: Vladimir Student certifies that all conflicts of
interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and
affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the
manuscript (eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultan-
cies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties,
or patents filed, received, or pending), are the following: None.
Funding/Support and role of the sponsor: The work was supported in part
by grant NV15-28628A from the Czech Ministry of Health. Supported by
MH CZ – DRO (FNOl, 00098892).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at
.
References
[1]
.
[2]
.
[3]
[4]
.
[5]
.
[6]
.
[7]
.
[8]
[9]
[10]
.
[11]
.
[12]
[13]
[14]
E U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y 7 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 8 2 2 – 8 3 0 829