Evaluating continence recovery time after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

  • Han HAO ,
  • Yue LIU ,
  • Yu-ke CHEN ,
  • Long-mei SI ,
  • Meng ZHANG ,
  • Yu FAN ,
  • Zhong-yuan ZHANG ,
  • Qi TANG ,
  • Lei ZHANG ,
  • Shi-liang WU ,
  • Yi SONG ,
  • Jian LIN ,
  • Zheng ZHAO ,
  • Cheng SHEN ,
  • Wei YU ,
  • Wen-ke HAN
Expand
  • National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing 100034, China

Received date: 2021-03-01

  Online published: 2021-08-25

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.

Cite this article

Han HAO , Yue LIU , Yu-ke CHEN , Long-mei SI , Meng ZHANG , Yu FAN , Zhong-yuan ZHANG , Qi TANG , Lei ZHANG , Shi-liang WU , Yi SONG , Jian LIN , Zheng ZHAO , Cheng SHEN , Wei YU , Wen-ke HAN . Evaluating continence recovery time after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy[J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2021 , 53(4) : 697 -703 . DOI: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2021.04.013

References

[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[15] Patel VR, Thaly R, Shan K. Robotic radical prostatectomy: Outcomes of 500 cases [J]. BJU Int, 2007, 99(5):1109-1112.
[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.
[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.
[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.
Outlines

/