Journals / ACH Medical journal / 2023 / Volume: 2 Issue: 4

The Effect of Preservation of the Bladder Neck on Incontinence Rates in Patients Who Undergo Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy

Pages
179–184
Publication Date
2023-10-02
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: Our results indicated that the approaches for preserving the bladder neck during RARP did not have a statistically significant effect on the prevalence of incontinence, however reduced the severity of incontinence.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: We aimed to compare the postoperative continence rates in prostate cancer patients who had robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) when bladder necks were “unpreserved”, “preserved” and “extremely preserved”.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: In this study, the data of 184 patients who underwent RARP for localized prostate cancer in our clinic between August 2019 and January 2023 were analyzed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Our results indicated that the approaches for preserving the bladder neck during RARP did not have a statistically significant effect on the prevalence of incontinence, however reduced the severity of incontinence.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Bladder neck sparing · Postprostatectomy incontinence · Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Abstract

Introduction: We aimed to compare the postoperative continence rates in prostate cancer patients who had robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) when bladder necks were “unpreserved”, “preserved” and “extremely preserved”. Methods: In this study, the data of 184 patients who underwent RARP for localized prostate cancer in our clinic between August 2019 and January 2023 were analyzed. The patients were divided into three groups as the bladder neck was not preserved (Group 1), the bladder neck was preserved (Group 2), and the bladder neck was extremely preserved (Group 3). Incontinence status was evaluated with the 24-hour pad test postoperatively at the 1st, 3rd 6th month and 12th months. Results: One month after surgery, the rate of fully continent patients was higher in Group 3 (39.1%) than Groups 1 and 2 (27.5% and 32.7%, respectively), however the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.483). At the postoperative 3rd month, the rate of fully continent patients was 56.5% in Group 3, 51.9% in Group 2 and 43.1% in Group 1 (p=0.361). The rate of patients with moderate incontinence was higher in Group 1 compared to other study groups (p=0.019). The rate of fully continent patients was 82.6% in Group 3, 73.1% in Group 2 and 61.5% in Group 1 at 6th postoperative month (p=0.079). At postoperative 6 month a significant difference was observed for moderate incontinence rates (15.6%, 5.8% and 0 for Groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively) (p=0.034). At the postoperative 12th month, the rate of fully continent patients was 91.3% in Group 3, 80.8% in Group 2 and 72.5% in Group 1 (p=0.118). Conclusion: Our results indicated that the approaches for preserving the bladder neck during RARP did not have a statistically significant effect on the prevalence of incontinence, however reduced the severity of incontinence.

🔖

Cite This Article

KETEN, T., OZERCAN, A. Y., KÖSEOĞLU, B., YILMAZ, A. B., EROĞLU, Ü., KIZILKAN, Y., BALCI, M., GÜZEL, Ö., ASLAN, Y., ÖZDEN, C., TUNCEL, A. (2023). The Effect of Preservation of the Bladder Neck on Incontinence Rates in Patients Who Undergo Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy. ACH Medical journal, Volume: 2 Issue: 4, 179–184. https://ajindex.com/articles/967004

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Okhawere KE, Shih IF, Lee SH, et al. Comparison of 1-Year Health Care Costs and Use Associated With Open vs Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(3):e212265
  2. Ilic D, Evans SM, Allan CA, et al. Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;9(9):CD009625
  3. Moretti TBC, Magna LA, Reis LO. Surgical Results and Complications for Open, Laparoscopic, and Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Reverse Systematic Review. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;44:150-161. 4. d’Altilia N, Mancini V, Falagario UG, et al. A Matched-Pair Analysis after Robotic and Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy: A New Definition of Continence and the Impact of Different Surgical Techniques. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(18):4350
  4. Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet. 2016;388(10049):1057-66
  5. Haglind E, Carlsson S, Stranne J, et al; LAPPRO steering committee. Urinary Incontinence and Erectile Dysfunction After Robotic Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy: A Prospective, Controlled, Nonrandomised Trial. Eur Urol. 2015;68(2):216-25
  6. 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):405-17
  7. Lavigueur-Blouin H, Noriega AC, Valdivieso R, et al. Predictors of early continence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015;9(1-2):e93-7
  8. Heo JE, Lee JS, Goh HJ, Jang WS, Choi YD. Urethral realignment with maximal urethral length and bladder neck preservation in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Urinary continence recovery. PLoS One. 2020;15(1):e0227744
  9. Yilmaz S, Ak E, Gazel E, et al. Bladder neck sparing during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Six-year experience. North Clin Istanb. 2021;8(3):269-74
  10. Dal Moro F, Zazzara M, Morlacco A, et al. Is “extreme” bladder neck preservation in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy a safe procedure? Urologia. 2020;87(3):149-54
  11. Kumar A, Litt ER, Ballert KN, Nitti VW. Artificial urinary sphincter versus male sling for post-prostatectomy incontinence--what do patients choose? J Urol. 2009;181(3):1231-5
  12. Bauer RM, Bastian PJ, Gozzi C, Stief CG. Postprostatectomy incontinence: al