Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences) ›› 2021, Vol. 53 ›› Issue (4): 697-703. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2021.04.013

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Evaluating continence recovery time after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

HAO Han,LIU Yue,CHEN Yu-ke,SI Long-mei,ZHANG Meng,FAN Yu,ZHANG Zhong-yuan,TANG Qi,ZHANG Lei,WU Shi-liang,SONG Yi,LIN Jian,ZHAO Zheng,SHEN Cheng(),YU Wei,HAN Wen-ke   

  1. National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing 100034, China
  • Received:2021-03-01 Online:2021-08-18 Published:2021-08-25
  • Contact: Cheng SHEN E-mail:shencheng@263.net

Abstract:

Objective: To evaluate urinary continence recovery time and risk factors of urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP). Methods: From January 2019 to January 2021, a consecutive series of patients with localized prostate cancer (cT1-T3, cN0, cM0) were prospectively collected. RARP with total anatomical reconstruction was performed in all the cases by an experienced surgeon. Lymph node dissection was performed if the patient was in high-risk group according to the D’Amico risk classification. The primary endpoint was urinary continence recovery time after catheter removal. Postoperative and pathological variables were analyzed. Continence was rigo-rously analyzed 48 hours, 1 week, 4 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks after catheter removal. Continence was evaluated by recording diaper pads used per day, and all the patients were instructed to perform the 24-hour pad weight test until full recovery of urinary continence. The patient was defined as continent if no more than one safety pad were needed per day, or no more than 20-gram urine leakage on the 24-hour pad weight test. Time from catheter removal to full recovery of urinary continence was recorded, and risk factors influencing continence recovery time evaluated. Results: In total, 166 patients were analyzed. The mean age of the enrolled patients was 66.2 years, and the median prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 8.51 μg/L. A total of 59 patients (35.5%) had bilateral lymphatic dissection, and 28 (16.9%) underwent neurovascular bundle (NVB) preservation surgery. Postoperative pathology results showed that stage pT1 in 1 case (0.6%), stage pT2 in 77 cases (46.4%), stage pT3 in 86 cases (51.8%), and positive margins in 28 patients (16.9%). Among patients who underwent lymph node dissection, lymph node metastasis was found in 7 cases (11.9%). Median continence recovery time was one week. The number of the continent patients at the end of 48 hours, 1 week, 4 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks were 65 (39.2%), 32 (19.3%), 34 (20.5%), 24 (14.5%), and 9 (5.4%). Two patients remained incontinent 24 weeks after catheter removal. The continence rates after catheter removal at the end of 48 hours, 1 week, 4 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks were 39.2%, 58.4%, 78.9%, 93.4%, and 98.8%, respectively. Univariate COX analysis revealed that diabetes appeared to influence continence recovery time (OR=1.589, 95%CI: 1.025-2.462,P=0.038). At the end of 48 hours, 4 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks after catheter removal, the mean OABSS score of the continent group was significantly lower than that of the incontinent group. Conclusion: RARP showed promising results in the recovery of urinary continence. Diabetes was a risk factor influencing continence recovery time. Bladder overactive symptoms play an important role in the recovery of continence after RARP.

Key words: Prostatectomy, Robotic surgical procedures, Urinary incontinence

CLC Number: 

  • R737.25

Figure 1

Trocar placement"

Figure 2

The periurethral retropubic suspension stitch"

Figure 3

Illustration depicting the first layer of posterior reconstruction (A) and laparoscopic view (B),the needle is passed through the cranial portion of previously sectioned Denonvilliers’ fascia and the median raphe"

Figure 4

Illustration depicting the second layer of posterior reconstruction (A) and laparoscopic view (B),including the bladder neck mucosa, the vesicoprostatic muscle, and the posterior aspect of the urethra mucosa"

Table 1

Patients’ histopathological data"

Pathological findings Data
Positive margins, n(%) 28 (16.9)
Stage, n(%)
pT1 1 (0.6)
pT2 77 (46.4)
pT3 86 (51.8)
pT3a 54 (32.5)
pT3b 32 (19.3)
Gleason score, n(%)
2-6 12 (7.2)
7 102 (61.4)
8-10 50 (30.1)

Figure 5

Number of patients recovered continence at each time point after catheter removal"

Table 2

Pads usage and leakage weights per day"

Time after
catheter removal
Leakage weights/g,
M (P25,P75)
Pads usage,
M (P25,P75)
48 hours 150 (21, 500) 2 (1, 4)
1 weeks 50 (10, 200) 1 (1, 3)
4 weeks 15 (3, 93) 1 (0, 2)
12 weeks 3 (0, 10) 0 (0, 1)
24 weeks 1 (0, 9) 0 (0, 1)

Figure 6

Continence rates at different time points after catheter removal"

Figure 7

Incontinence probability since catheter removal (A), and impact of diabetes on incontinence probability since catheter removal (B) DM, diabetes mellitus."

Table 3

Risk factors for continence recovery time (univariate COX regression)"

Items OR (95%CI) P
Age 0.998 (0.975-1.021) 0.860
BMI 0.969 (0.925-1.016) 0.191
Diabetes 1.589 (1.025-2.462) 0.038
Prostate volume 1.005 (0.997-1.013) 0.218
PSA 1.007 (0.992-1.022) 0.374
NVB preservation 0.803 (0.532-1.211) 0.295
Lymph node dissection 0.873 (0.632-1.206) 0.410
Positive margin 1.099 (0.729-1.655) 0.653
IPSS score 1.016 (0.997-1.036) 0.107
OABSS score 1.004 (0.945-1.066) 0.903

Figure 8

OABSS (mean) at each time point after catheter removal OABSS, overactive bladder symptom score."

[1] 韩苏军, 张思维, 陈万青, 等. 中国前列腺癌发病现状和流行趋势分析 [J]. 临床肿瘤学杂志, 2013, 18(4):330-334.
[2] Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy [J]. Eur Urol, 2012, 62(3):405-417.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.045
[3] Patel VR, Abdul-Muhsin HM, Schatloff O, et al. Critical review of “pentafecta” outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in high-volume centres [J]. BJU Int, 2011, 108(6 Pt 2):1007-1017.
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10521.x
[4] Jeong SJ, Yi J, Chung MS, et al. Early recovery of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy: Correlation with vesico-urethral anastomosis location in the pelvic cavity measured by postoperative cystography [J]. Int J Urol, 2011, 18(6):444-451.
doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2011.02760.x
[5] Skolarus TA, Hedgepeth RC, Zhang Y, et al. Does robotic technology mitigate the challenges of large prostate size? [J]. Urology, 2010, 76(5):1117-1121.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.03.060 pmid: 20708781
[6] Link BA, Nelson R, Josephson DY, et al. The impact of prostate gland weight in robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy [J]. J Urol, 2008, 180(3):928-932.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.029
[7] Shikanov S, Desai V, Razmaria A, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy for elderly patients: probability of achieving continence and potency 1 year after surgery [J]. J Urol, 2010, 183(5):1803-1807.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.01.016 pmid: 20299041
[8] Novara G, Ficarra V, D'Ella C, et al. Evaluating urinary continence and preoperative predictors of urinary continence after robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy [J]. J Urol, 2010, 184(3):1028-1033.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.04.069 pmid: 20643426
[9] Porpiglia F, Bertolo R, Manfredi M, et al. Total anatomical reconstruction during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Implications on early recovery of urinary continence [J]. Eur Urol, 2016, 69(3):485-495.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.005
[10] Jønler M, Madsen FA, Rhodes PR, et al. A prospective study of quantification of urinary incontinence and quality of life in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy [J]. Urology, 1996, 48(3):433-440.
pmid: 8804498
[11] Porpiglia F, Morra I, Lucci Chiarissi M, et al. Randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy [J]. Eur Urol, 2013, 63(4):606-614.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.07.007
[12] Patel VR, Coelho RF, Palmer KJ, et al. Periurethral suspension stitch during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Description of the technique and continence outcomes [J]. Eur Urol, 2009, 56(3):472-478.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.06.007
[13] Sugimura Y, Hioki T, Yamada Y, et al. An anterior urethral stitch improves urinary incontinence following radical prostatectomy [J]. Int J Urol, 2001, 8(4):153-157.
pmid: 11260346
[14] Noguchi M, Noda S, Nakashima O, et al. Suspension technique improves rapid recovery of urinary continence following radical retropubic prostatectomy [J]. Kurume Med J, 2004, 51(3/4):245-251.
doi: 10.2739/kurumemedj.51.245
[15] Patel VR, Thaly R, Shan K. Robotic radical prostatectomy: Outcomes of 500 cases [J]. BJU Int, 2007, 99(5):1109-1112.
doi: 10.1111/bju.2007.99.issue-5
[16] Rocco F, Carmignani L, Acquati P, et al. Early continence reco-very after open radical prostatectomy with restoration of the posterior aspect of the rhabdosphincter [J]. Eur Urol, 2007, 52(2):376-383.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.01.109
[17] Cakmak S, Canda AE, Ener K, et al. Does type 2 diabetes mellitus have an impact on postoperative early, mid-term and late-term urinary continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy? [J]. J Endourol, 2019, 33(3):201-206.
doi: 10.1089/end.2018.0822
[18] Huang J, Wang Y, An Y, et al. Impact of diabetes mellitus on urinary continence recovery after radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. Urol J, 2020, 18(2):136-143.
[1] Fan ZHANG,Qu CHEN,Yi-chang HAO,Ye YAN,Cheng LIU,Yi HUANG,Lu-lin MA. Relationship between recovery of urinary continence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and preoperative/postoperative membranous urethral length [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2022, 54(2): 299-303.
[2] ZHANG Fan,HUANG Xiao-juan,YANG Bin,YAN Ye,LIU Cheng,ZHANG Shu-dong,HUANG Yi,MA Lu-lin. Relationship between prostate apex depth and early recovery of urinary continence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(4): 692-696.
[3] Si-da CHENG,Xin-fei LI,Sheng-wei XIONG,Shu-bo FAN,Jie WANG,Wei-jie ZHU,Zi-ao LI,Guang-pu DING,Ting YU,Wan-qiang LI,Yong-ming SUN,Kun-lin YANG,Lei ZHANG,Han HAO,Xue-song LI,Li-qun ZHOU. Robot-assisted laparoscopic upper urinary tract reconstruction surgery: A review of 108 cases by a single surgeon [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2020, 52(4): 771-779.
[4] Xian-hui LIU,Wei-yu ZHANG,Hao HU,Qi WANG,Tao WANG,Yong-xin HE,Ke-xin XU. Long-term follow-up of the efficacy of tension-free vaginal tape and trans-obturator tape for different types of stress urinary incontinence [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2019, 51(4): 694-697.
[5] Xin-yan CHE,Shi-liang WU,Yu-ke CHEN,Yan-bo HUANG,Yang YANG. A survey of risk factors and quality of life in female medical staff with urinary incontinence [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2019, 51(4): 706-710.
[6] ZHANG Fan, ZHANG Shu-dong, XIAO Chun-lei, HUANG Yi, MA Lu-lin. Perioperative parameters and prognosis analysis of patients aged 80 years or older treated with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2018, 50(5): 822-827.
[7] ZHANG Fan, XIAO Chun-lei, ZHANG Shu-dong, HUANG Yi, MA Lu-lin. Relationship between recovery of urinary continence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and prostatic volume and intravesical prostatic protursion length [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2018, 50(4): 621-625.
[8] ZHANG Wei-yu, ZHANG Xiao-peng, HU Hao, CHEN Jing-wen, LIU Xian-hui, XU Ke-xin. Analysis of outcomes of tension-free mid-urethral sling procedure in women with mixed urinary incontinence [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2017, 49(4): 638-642.
[9] ZHANG Wei-yu, ZHANG Xiao-peng, CHEN Jing-wen, SUN Yi-ran, WANG Jia, HU Hao, XU Ke-xin. Effect of age on urodynamic parameters of women with urinary incontinence [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2016, 48(5): 825-829.
[10] ZHANG Wei-yu, HU Hao, WANG Qi, CHEN Jing-wen, XU Ke-xin. Significance of preoperative urodynamics for clinical diagnosis of female patients with stress urinary incontinence [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2016, 48(4): 655-658.
[11] ZUO Qiang, ZHANG Fan, HUANG Yi, MA Lu-lin, LU Min, LU Jian. Clinically predictive factors of Gleason score upgrading in patients after radical prostatectomy [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2016, 48(4): 603-606.
[12] LIAO Xiao-Xing, XING Nian-Zeng, QIAO Peng, KANG Ning, ZHANG Jun-Hui, NIU Yi-Nong. "Sandwich” urethra reconstruction improves the early continence following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2015, 47(4): 601-604.
[13] JIA Xiao-Jun, FANG Zhi-Wei, HU Hao, XU Ke-Xin, HUANG Xiao-Bo, WANG Xiao-Feng. Influence of tension-free midurethral sling surgery on sexual function in women with stress urinary incontinence [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2014, 46(4): 570-573.
[14] LI Qing, XIAO Bo, LIU Shi-Jun, XU Tao, WANG Xiao-Feng. Effects of interval time between prostate biopsy and surgery on laparoscopic radical prostatectomy [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2014, 46(4): 532-536.
[15] SHEN Qi, HU Shuai, LI Jun, WANG Jing-Hua, HE Qun. Incidence and clinicopathological characteristics of incidental prostatic adenocarcinoma in radical cystoprostatectomy specimens [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2014, 46(4): 515-518.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(4): 456 -458 .
[2] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(2): 125 -128 .
[3] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(2): 135 -140 .
[4] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(2): 158 -161 .
[5] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(2): 217 -220 .
[6] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(1): 52 -55 .
[7] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(1): 109 -111 .
[8] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(3): 297 -301 .
[9] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(5): 505 -515 .
[10] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(5): 599 -601 .