EARLY CONTINENCE RECOVERY AFTER ROBOT-ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY
https://doi.org/10.18705/2311-4495-2017-4-6-53-61
Abstract
Background. Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy bothers patients and leads to a deterioration in quality of life. Continence is the most important functional outcome of treatment of patients with prostate cancer.
Objective. To evaluate the effectiveness of pelvic anatomy preservation for early continence recovery.
Design and methods. We investigated 142 patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in 2011-2015. Patients were divided into 3 groups: nerve-sparing RARP (N-RARP, n=44), nerve-sparing RARP with preservation of pelvic fascia, pubo-prostatic ligaments and pubo-perineal muscles (RARP-A, n=64) and RARP with preservation of the anatomical structures of the pelvis without preservation of the neurovascular bundles (RARP-B, n=34).
Results. Groups did not differ in operation time (p=0.17), blood loss (p=0.77), intraoperative (p>0.1) and postoperative complications (p=0.64). Immediately after catheter removal and 1 month after surgery 53.9 %, 79.7 %, 54.6 % (p=0.012) and 61.4 %, 87,5 %, 84,6 % (p=0.005) of patients were continent in groups N-RARP, RARP-A and RARP-B, respectively. Correlation was found between the preserving of pelvic anatomical and continence recovery immediately after catheter removal (p=0.019) and at 1 month after surgery (p=0.001).
Conclusion. Careful preservation of the pelvic anatomy leads to an early continence after RARP.
About the Authors
M. S. Mosoyan
Almazov National Medical Research Centre;
Pavlov First Saint Petersburg Medical University
Russian Federation
Competing Interests: none
Russian Federation
Mkrtich S. Mosoyan - MD, PhD, D. Sc., Professor and Chair in Department of Urology and Robotic Surgery and Head of Centre for Robotic Surgery.
Parkhomenko str. 15-B, Saint Petersburg, 194156
Competing Interests: none
D. M. Ilin
Almazov National Medical Research Centre
Russian Federation
Competing Interests: none
Russian Federation
Dmitry M. Ilin - MD, Assistant Professor in Department of Urology and Robotic Surgery.
Saint PetersburgCompeting Interests: none
References
1. Kaprin AD, Starinskiy AD, Petrova GV, et al. State of cancer care in Russia in 2015. Moscow: MORI — P. Herzen Moscow Oncology Research Institute, 2016. p. 236. In Russian [Каприн А.Д., Старинский В.В., Петрова Г.В. и др. Состояние онкологической помощи населению России в 2015 году. М.: МНИОИ им. П.А. Герцена — филиал ФГБУ «НМИРЦ» Минздрава России, 2016. с. 236].
2. Zhou CK, Check DP, Lortet-Tieulent J et al. Prostate cancer incidence in 43 populations worldwide: An analysis of time trends overall and by age group. Int J Cancer. 2016; 138 (6):1388–1400 .
3. Pushkar DY, Rasner PI, Kolontarev KB. Robotassisted radical prostatectomy: an analysis of the fi rst 80 cases. Oncourology. 2010; 3:37-42. In Russian [Пушкарь Д.Ю., Раснер П.И., Колонтарев К.Б. Радикальная простатэктомия с роботической ассистенцией: анализ первых 80 случаев. Онкоурология. 2010; 3: 37–42] .
4. Diaz M, Peabody JO, Kapoor V, et al. Oncologic outcomes at 10 years following robotic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2015; 67 (6):1168–1176 .
5. Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012; 62 (3):431–452 .
6. Porpiglia F, Morra I, Lucci Chiarissi M, et al. Randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2013; 63 (4): 606–614.
7. Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA, et al. Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012; 62 (1): 1–15 .
8. Haga N, Yanagida T, Yabe M, et al. Timing of Urinary Pad Exchanges Was the Most Important Factor Affecting Quality of Life in the Early Postoperative Period After Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2015; 29 (9): 1044–1051.
9. Mager R, Kurosch M, Hüsch T, et al. Prevention of postprostatectomy incontinence: etiology and risk factors. Urologe A. 2014; 53 (3): 327–328, 330, 332 .
10. Mottet N. EAU — ESTRO — ESUR — SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. European Association of Urology. 2017. p. 146.
11. Patel VR, Sivaraman A, Coelho RF, et al. Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2011; 59 (5): 702–707.
12. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012; 62 (3): 405–417 .
13. Grasso AA, Mistretta FA, Sandri M, et al. Posterior musculofascial reconstruction after radical prostatectomy: an updated systematic review and a meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2016; 118 (1): 20–34.
14. Gupta NP, Yadav R, Akpo EE, et al. Continence outcomes following robotic radical prostatectomy: Our experience from 150 consecutive patients. Indian J Urol. 2014; 30 (4): 374–377.
15. Rasner PI, Kotenko DV, Kolontarev KB, et al. Comparative analysis of functional results of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy in patients with localized prostate cancer. Experimental and clinical urology. 2014; 4: 26–30. In Russian [Раснер П.И., Котенко Д.В., Колонтарев К.Б. и др. Сравнительный анализ функциональных результатов радикальной позадилонной и робот-ассистированной простатэктомии у больных локализованным раком предстательной железы. Экспериментальная и клиническая урология. 2014; 4: 26–30].
16. Kogan MI, Volodikhin AV. Improvement radical prostatectomy surgical technique to reduce post-operative incontinence. Oncourology. 2005; 1: 45–53. In Russian. [Коган М.И., Волдохин А.В. Совершенствование хирургической техники радикальной простатэктомии для снижения послеоперационной инконтиненции. Онкоурология. 2005; 1: 45–53].
17. Walz J, Epstein JI, Ganzer R, et al. A Critical Analysis of the Current Knowledge of Surgical Anatomy of the Prostate Related to Optimisation of Cancer Control and Preservation of Continence and Erection in Candidates for Radical Prostatectomy: An Update. Eur Urol. 2016; 70(2):301311 .
18. Hoepffner JL, Gaston R, Mugnier C, et al. Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: Contribution of robotic support, functional and oncological outcomes. Bull Cancer. 2016; 103(5):461-468 .
19. Berg KD, Thomsen FB, Hvarness H, et al. Early biochemical recurrence, urinary continence and potency outcomes following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Scand J Urol. 2014; 48(4):356-366.
20. Gandaglia G, Suardi N, Gallina A, et al. How to optimize patient selection for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: functional outcome analyses from a tertiary referral center. J Endourol. 2014; 28(7):792-800 .
21. Kumar A, Samavedi S, Bates AS, et al. Continence outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with adverse urinary continence risk factors. BJU Int. 2015; 116(5):764-770.
Review
For citations:
Mosoyan M.S., Ilin D.M. EARLY CONTINENCE RECOVERY AFTER ROBOT-ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY. Translational Medicine. 2017;4(6):53-61. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18705/2311-4495-2017-4-6-53-61
Views:
2926
Email this article 