I've been wondering lately, given my continuing ED, what role surgical competence plays both in ED issues and incontinence issues. In my case, for example, the post-op pathology reads "weight of specimen: 80g; size of specimen: 5.7x5.5x5.4." That sounds to me like a very large prostate. Cystoscopy prior to surgery clearly showed the prostate intruding against the bladder opening, and the uro had expected to see that based on what he had seen during the biopsy. He had told me after the biopsy that he was concerned about this intrusion into the bladder neck.
After the cysto, he said he was glad he had seen the cysto images, because he was now aware that he would have to be extra cautious in that area.
Apparently he was very cautious, because at two months I'm essentially OK in the continence area, except when caught completely unaware by a powerful sneeze.
So, I'm still wondering to what degree the problems so many of us experience after surgery (incontinence and ED) might be attributed to what happened during surgery (surgical expertise); how much to our own peculiar anatomical differences; and how much to the very nature of the delicate surgery we've undergone.
Whatever the case may be, as someone said above we must live with the results we've obtained, and fortunately there are remedies available to help with both issues. My uro was very upfront about possible ED issues, given that he was fairly certain the left side nerves could not be saved, but he didn't say much about possible incontinence. Maybe that's an issue doctors should be more upfront about.
Here's wishing you all the best with your serious incontinence problems.