1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Early Continence and Extravasation After Open Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy – Interrupted vs Continuous Suturing for Vesicourethral Anastomosis

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          To compare running suture (RS) and interrupted suture (IS) of vesicourethral anastomosis (VUA) during open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) on early urinary continence and extravasation.

          Patients and Methods

          Single center analysis of 211 patients who underwent RRP performed by a single surgeon during 2008 to 2017 was retrospectively analyzed. For VUA, we used the standard interrupted suture technique (n=100) with a 3–0 PDS suture. The RS (n=111) was performed with 12-bite suture using 3–0 PDS. The primary endpoints were extravasation and early continence. Demographic and peri-operative data were collected and analyzed using Pearson’s chi-square, t-Test and Mann–Whitney U-test. A binary logistic regression analysis was carried out to explore predictors that affected early continence after catheter removal.

          Results

          The rates of early urinary incontinence (UI) were 7.7% vs 42.2% (p<0.001). The duration of catheterization and hospitalization was significantly shorter in the interrupted group (4 days vs 5 days, p<0.001 and 5 days vs 6 days, p<0.001). The groups did not differ significantly in body mass index or prostate volume. There were older patients and higher PSA levels in the group with RS technique. No significant difference was found in the postoperative extravasation rates between both groups (13.5% vs 12%, p=0.742).

          Conclusion

          Running vesicourethral anastomosis increased the rate of early urinary incontinence. Both anastomosis techniques provided a similar rate of postoperative urine extravasation. VUA should only be one of the many criteria that must be considered for the preservation of urinary continence of patients after RRP.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique.

           P C Walsh (1998)
          Although radical prostatectomy provided excellent cancer control, it never gained widespread popularity because of the major side effects of incontinence, impotence and excessive blood loss. The reason for this morbidity was a deficit in the understanding of the periprostatic anatomy. The evolution of the surgical technique for anatomic radical prostatectomy is described. Beginning in 1974 anatomic observations in the operating room were used to clarify the anatomy of the dorsal vein complex, pelvic plexus, striated urethral sphincter and lateral pelvic fascia. These intraoperative observations were amplified using dissections in stillborns and step section whole mount adult cadaveric studies. Armed with improved information about the periprostatic anatomy, an anatomical approach to radical prostatectomy was developed. This surgical technique has improved surgical exposure, lowered blood loss, reduced urinary incontinence, made it possible to preserve potency and provided excellent cancer control. With the reduction in morbidity, radical prostatectomy today is an ideal treatment for the cure of prostate cancer in a patient who is curable and who is going to live long enough to need to be cured. Also the widespread application of radical prostatectomy has provided tissue and valuable pathological information that has galvanized research in the field.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Restoration of posterior aspect of rhabdosphincter shortens continence time after radical retropubic prostatectomy.

            Prolonged postoperative incontinence is a major drawback of RRP. Age, scars in the rhabdosphincter, nonnerve sparing surgery and postoperative sphincter insufficiency can cause temporary or definitive urinary incontinence. We believe that sphincter deficiency is the main cause of early incontinence. Urinary leakage results from the shortening of anatomical and functional sphincter length due to caudal retraction of the urethral sphincteric complex and disruption of the median posterior fibrous raphe. We describe a modification of the Walsh RRP that overcomes caudal retraction, reconstructs the posterior fibrous raphe and decreases time to continence. The primary study end point was early continence rate assessment. Long-term continence (1 year) and erectile function assessment were secondary end points. To avoid caudal retraction of the urethrosphincteric complex, before completing the vesicourethral anastomosis the posterior semicircumference of the sphincter is joined to the residuum of Denonvilliers' fascia and fixed to the posterior bladder wall 1 to 2 cm cranial and dorsal to the new bladder neck. Vesicourethral anastomosis is subsequently performed with care taken not to involve the neurovascular bundles. A total of 161 patients with clinically confined disease underwent modified RRP (group 1). They were compared with a historical series of 50 patients who underwent standard RRP (group 2). Early continence was defined as no pad use but patients using 1 diaper were also considered continent. Continence, assessed prospectively as the number of pads daily, was evaluated 3, 30 and 90 days, and 1 year after catheter removal. The continence state was assessed by a multivariate logistic model. Erectile function was evaluated using the International Index of Erectile Function questionnaire preoperatively and after 18 months in patients younger than 65 years who underwent nerve sparing surgery. In group 1, 116 (72%), 127 (78.8%) and 139 patients (86.3%) were continent 3, 30 and 90 days after catheter removal compared with 7 (14%), 15 (30%) and 23 (46%), respectively, in group 2. One-year continence rates were 96% and 90%, respectively. Erectile function was similar in groups 1 and 2 (46% and 42%, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that continence was significantly influenced by operation type, stage and patient age. Careful reconstruction of the posterior aspect of the rhabdosphincter markedly shortens time to continence.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

              Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) was proposed to improve functional outcomes in comparison with retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). In the initial RARP series, 12-mo urinary continence recovery rates ranged from 84% to 97%. However, the few available studies comparing RARP with RRP or LRP published before 2008 did not permit any definitive conclusions about the superiority of any one of these techniques in terms of urinary continence recovery. The aims of this systematic review were (1) to evaluate the prevalence and risk factors for urinary incontinence after RARP, (2) to identify surgical techniques able to improve urinary continence recovery after RARP, and (3) to perform a cumulative analysis of all available studies comparing RARP versus RRP or LRP in terms of the urinary continence recovery rate. A literature search was performed in August 2011 using the Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The Medline search included only a free-text protocol using the term radical prostatectomy across the title and abstract fields of the records. The following limits were used: humans; gender (male); and publication date from January 1, 2008. Searches of the Embase and Web of Science databases used the same free-text protocol, keywords, and search period. Only comparative studies or clinical series including >100 cases reporting urinary continence outcomes were included in this review. Cumulative analysis was conducted using the Review Manager v.4.2 software designed for composing Cochrane Reviews (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). We analyzed 51 articles reporting urinary continence rates after RARP: 17 case series, 17 studies comparing different techniques in the context of RARP, 9 studies comparing RARP with RRP, and 8 studies comparing RARP with LRP. The 12-mo urinary incontinence rates ranged from 4% to 31%, with a mean value of 16% using a no pad definition. Considering a no pad or safety pad definition, the incidence ranged from 8% to 11%, with a mean value of 9%. Age, body mass index, comorbidity index, lower urinary tract symptoms, and prostate volume were the most relevant preoperative predictors of urinary incontinence after RARP. Only a few comparative studies evaluated the impact of different surgical techniques on urinary continence recovery after RARP. Posterior musculofascial reconstruction with or without anterior reconstruction was associated with a small advantage in urinary continence recovery 1 mo after RARP. Only complete reconstruction was associated with a significant advantage in urinary continence 3 mo after RARP (odds ratio [OR]: 0.76; p=0.04). Cumulative analyses showed a better 12-mo urinary continence recovery after RARP in comparison with RRP (OR: 1.53; p=0.03) or LRP (OR: 2.39; p=0.006). The prevalence of urinary incontinence after RARP is influenced by preoperative patient characteristics, surgeon experience, surgical technique, and methods used to collect and report data. Posterior musculofascial reconstruction seems to offer a slight advantage in terms of 1-mo urinary continence recovery. Update of a previous systematic review of literature shows, for the first time, a statistically significant advantage in favor of RARP in comparison with both RRP and LRP in terms of 12-mo urinary continence recovery. Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier B.V.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ther Clin Risk Manag
                Ther Clin Risk Manag
                tcrm
                tcriskman
                Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
                Dove
                1176-6336
                1178-203X
                23 December 2020
                2020
                : 16
                : 1289-1296
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Urology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humbold-Universität Zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health , Berlin 10117, Germany
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Frank Friedersdorff Tel +49 30 450615219Fax +49 30 450515910 Email frank.friedersdorff@charite.de
                [*]

                These authors contributed equally to this work

                Article
                278454
                10.2147/TCRM.S278454
                7767697
                33380800
                © 2020 Köhler et al.

                This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 4, References: 32, Pages: 8
                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article