Timo Soeterik

95 Nerve Sparing and Risk of Positive Margins REFERENCES 1. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in prostate cancer - 29-year follow-up. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2319. 2. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al. EAU- ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71:618. 3. Johansson E, Steineck G, Holmberg L et al. Long-term quality-of-life outcomes after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting: the Scandinavian prostate cancer group-4 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol . 2011;12:891. 4. Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA et al. Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016375:1425. 5. Walsh PC, Donker PJ: Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol. 2017;197:S165. 6. Suardi N, Moschini M, Gallina A et al. Nerve sparing approach during radical prostatectomy is strongly associated with the rate of postoperative urinary continence recovery. BJU Int. 2013;111:717. 7. Nguyen LN, Head L, Witiuk K et al. The risks and benefits of cavernous neurovascular bundle sparing during radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol . 2017;198:760. 8. Chalfin HJ, Dinizo M, Trock BJ et al. Impact of surgical margin status on prostate-cancer- specific mortality. BJU Int . 2012;110:1684. 9. Preisser F, Mazzone E, Knipper S et al. Rates of positive surgical margins and their effect on cancer-specific mortality at radical prostatectomy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019;17:e130. 10. Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot- assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol . 2012;62:418. 11. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol . 2016;40:244. 12. Fine SW, Amin MB, Berney DM et al. A contemporary update on pathology reporting for prostate cancer: biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol . 2012;62:20. 13. Van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Soft. 2011; 45:1-67. 14. RStudio Team (2015). RStudio: Integrated development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA URL: http://www.rstudio.com/ 15. Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Orvieto MA et al. Predictive factors for positive surgical margins and their locations after robot- assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol . 2010;57:1022. 16. Moore BM, Savdie R, PeBenito RA et al. The impact of nerve sparing on incidence and location of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy. BJU Int . 2012;109:533. 17. Choi WW, Freire MP, Soukup JR et al. Nerve sparing technique and urinary control after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. World J Urol . 2011;29:21. 18. Nelles JL, Freedland SJ, Presti JC,Jr et al. Impact of nerve sparing on surgical margins and biochemical recurrence: results from the SEARCH database. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis . 2009;12:172. 19. Zorn KC, Gofrit ON, OrvietoMA et al. Robotic- assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: functional and pathologic outcomes with interfascial nerve preservation. Eur Urol . 2007;51:755. 20. Liss M, Osann K, Ornstein D. Positive surgical margins during robotic radical prostatectomy: a contemporary analysis of risk factors. BJU Int . 2008;102:603. 5