Journals / Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology / 2013 / Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 3

The effects of retropubic and perineal radical prostatectomy techniques on urinary continence after surgery: Results of 196 patients

Retropubik ve perineal radikal prostatektomi tekniklerinin cerrahi sonrası üriner kontinans üzerine olan etkileri: 196 hastanın sonuçları

Pages
147–152
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: There was no significant difference between RPP and RRP groups according to the frequency of urinary incontinence.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the effects of the retropubic and perineal radical prostatec- tomy techniques on postoperative urinary continence.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and methods: This study included 54 patients who had undergone radical retropubic prostatec- tomy (RRP) and 142 patients who had undergone radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) in our clinic between December 2006 and December 2010 due to localized prostate cancer.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: There was no significant difference between RPP and RRP groups according to the frequency of urinary incontinence.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2006 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the effects of the retropubic and perineal radical prostatec- tomy techniques on postoperative urinary continence. Material and methods: This study included 54 patients who had undergone radical retropubic prostatec- tomy (RRP) and 142 patients who had undergone radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) in our clinic between December 2006 and December 2010 due to localized prostate cancer. The continence levels of the patients were recorded according to the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) prostate cancer index query form. These levels were measured in outpatient clinics and were based on the dates of the removal of the preoperative and postoperative transurethral catheters. Potential catheter removal times were on the first day or the first, third, sixth, or twelfth month. Results: The mean age of the perineal group was 62.3 (48-77) years, and the mean age of the retropubic group was 62.5 (50-74) years. The absolute urinary control rates of the RPP patients on the first day and the first, third, sixth, and twelfth month were 44.3%, 63.6%, 76.2%, 79.5%, and 86.1%, respectively. The same rates were 51.4%, 75.7%, 78.4%, 89.2%, and 91.9% for the RRP group, respectively. Conclusion: There was no significant difference between RPP and RRP groups according to the frequency of urinary incontinence.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı; farklı diseksiyon yollarını kullanan retropubik ve perineal radikal prostatek- tomi tekniklerinin, postoperatif idrar kontinansı üzerindeki etkilerini değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve yöntemler: Çalışmaya lokalize prostat kanseri nedeniyle kliniğimizde Aralık 2006-Ağustos 2010 tarihleri arasında gerçekleştirilen 54 Radikal Retropubik Prostatektomi (RRP) ve 142 Radikal Perineal Prostatektomi (RPP) yapılan hasta dahil edildi. Hastaların preoperatif ve postoperatif transüretral kateter çekildiği gün, 1. ay, 3. ay, 6. ay ve 12. ay kontinans değerlendirilmesi University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) Prostat Kanser Indeks sorgulama formu ile, poliklinik ortamında, formlar hastalar tarafından dol- durularak yapıldı. Bulgular: Perineal grupta yaş ortalaması 62,3 (48-77) yıl, retropubik grupta ise 62,5 (50-74) yıl idi (p>0,05). İdrar kaçırma sıklığına göre kontinans değerlendirildiğinde tam idrar kontrolü olan hastalar postoperatif kateter çekildiği gün, postoperatif 1, 3, 6 ve 12. ay sonunda RPP grubunda sırası ile %44,3, %63,6, %76,2, %79,5 ve %86,1, RRP grubunda %51,4, %75,7, %78,4, %89,2 ve %91,9 olarak tespit edildi. Sonuç: Bizim çalışmamızda RPP ve RRP grupları arasında idrar kaçırma sıklığı açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunmamıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KAFKASLI, A., BOZ, M. Y., BALABAN, M., HORUZ, R., SELİMOĞLU, A., ALBAYRAK, S., CANGÜVEN, Ö. (2013). The effects of retropubic and perineal radical prostatectomy techniques on urinary continence after surgery: Results of 196 patients. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 3, 147–152. https://ajindex.com/articles/328011

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Boyle P, Ferlay J. Cancer incidence and mortality in Europe 2004. Ann Oncol 2005
  2. [CrossRef] 2. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008
  3. [CrossRef] 3. Walsh PC. Radical retropubic prostatectomy with reduced morbi- dity: an anatomic approach. NCI Monogr 1988
  4. Özen H. Retropubik radikal prostatektomi
  5. Özen H, Türkeri L. Üroonkoloji
  6. p.675-97. 5. Vaalasti A, Hervonen A. Innervation of the ventral prostate of the rat. Am J Anat 1979
  7. [CrossRef] 6. Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Pearson JD. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology 2001
  8. [CrossRef] 7. Litwin MS, Hays RD, Fink A, Ganz PA, Leake B, Leach GE, et al. Quality-of-life outcomes in men treated for localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1995
  9. [CrossRef] 8. Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J, Sandler HM, Northouse L, Hembroff L, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med 2008
  10. [CrossRef] 9. Young HH. The early diagnosis and radical cure of carcinoma of the prostate. Being a study of 40 cases and presentation of a ra- dical operation which was carried out in four cases. 1905. J Urol 2002
  11. [CrossRef] 10. Briganti A, Blute ML, Eastham JH, Graefen M, Heidenreich A, Karnes JR, et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2009
  12. [CrossRef] 11. Paiva CS, Andreoni C, Cunha GP, Khalil W, Ortiz V. Differences among patients undergoing perineal or retropubic radical prosta- tectomy in pain and perioperative variables: a prospective study. BJU Int 2009
  13. [CrossRef] 12. Nargund VH, Zaman F. Radical prostatectomy--too soon to abandon the perineal approach? Nat Rev Urol 2011
  14. [CrossRef] 13. Coelho RF, Rocco B, Patel MB, Orvieto MA, Chauhan S, Ficarra V, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical pros- tatectomy: a critical review of outcomes reported by high-volume centers. J Endourol 2010
  15. [CrossRef] 14. Comploj E, Palermo S, Trenti E, Martini T, Lodde M, Mian C, et al. Radical perineal prostatectomy: An outdated procedure? Int J Surg 2011
  16. [CrossRef] 15. Gray M, Petroni GR, Theodorescu D. Urinary function after ra- dical prostatectomy: a comparison of the retropubic and perineal approaches. Urology 1999
  17. [CrossRef] 16. Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Ro