Urethral pressure profile before radical prostatectomy as a predictor of early postoperative continence.
International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form
pads
prostate cancer
radical prostatectomy
urethral pressure profile
urinary incontinence
Journal
Neurourology and urodynamics
ISSN: 1520-6777
Titre abrégé: Neurourol Urodyn
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8303326
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2022
08 2022
Historique:
revised:
09
05
2022
received:
22
02
2022
accepted:
21
05
2022
pubmed:
8
6
2022
medline:
28
7
2022
entrez:
7
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Urinary incontinence (UI) is one of the most common complications of radical prostatectomy (RP). Impaired urethral sphincter function is generally considered to be the most important contributing factor for UI; however, the mechanism of onset and recovery of urinary continence has not been fully elucidated. The objective of this research was to evaluate preoperative functional urethral length (FUL) and maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP) as early continence recovery predictors after open retropubic RP (ORRP). The research was conducted on a group of 43 patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) in the period from July 2019 to May 2021. The urodynamic method of urethral pressure profile (UPP) was used to assess FUL and MUCP, and correlate with the postprostatectomy continence recovery. The severity of UI and bothersome were assessed using fully validated International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire - Urinary Incontinence Short Form (ICIQ-UI SF) and number of pads used in 24 h. Patients were interviewed about the use of urinary pads and asked to fill out the ICIQ-UI SF before and 2, 8, 16 and 24 weeks after ORRP. The median value of FUL (mm) and MUCP (cmH2O) was 69 (28-94) and 76 (16-223), respectively. Correlation and linear regression showed a statistically significant negative correlation between preoperative values of FUL and MUCP with ICIQ symptom score and the number of pads used per day at the four observed time intervals (p < 0.05). Such a result showed that patients with higher preoperative FUL and MUCP values were more likely to recover urinary continence earlier. A value of 65 mm for FUL and 80 cmH Preoperatively evaluated FUL and MUCP seem to be valuable prognostic factors for early continence recovery after ORRP. Further investigation on a larger patient cohort is needed to evaluate the role of UPP in the preoperative management of patients with PCa.
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT05247775']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1431-1439Informations de copyright
© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Whiting PF, Moore TH, Jameson CM, et al. Symptomatic and quality-of-life outcomes after treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. BJU Int. 2016;118(2):193-204. doi:10.1111/bju.13499
Dahl S, Loge JH, Berge V, Dahl AA, Cvancarova M, Fosså SD. Influence of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer on work status and working life 3 years after surgery. J Cancer Surviv. 2015;9(2):172-179. doi:10.1007/s11764-014-0399-6
Grabbert M, Buchner A, Butler-Ransohoff C, Kretschmer A, Stief CG, Bauer RM. Long-term functional outcome analysis in a large cohort of patients after radical prostatectomy. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(7):2263-2270. doi:10.1002/nau.23557
Resnick MJ, Koyama T, Fan KH, et al. Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(5):436-445. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1209978
Olsson LE, Salomon L, Nadu A, et al. Prospective patient-reported continence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2001;58(4):570-572. doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(01)01261-4
Dubbelman YD, Bosch JLHR. Urethral sphincter function before and after radical prostatectomy: systematic review of the prognostic value of various assessment techniques. Neurourol Urodyn. 2013;32(7):957-963. doi:10.1002/nau.22355
Heesakkers J, Farag F, Bauer RM, Sandhu J, De Ridder D, Stenzl A. Pathophysiology and contributing factors in postprostatectomy incontinence: a review. Eur Urol. 2017;71(6):936-944. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2016.09.031
Chughtai B, Lee R, Sandhu J, Te A, Kaplan S. Conservative treatment for postprostatectomy incontinence. Rev Urol. 2013;15(2):61-66.
Bamshad BR, Hadley HR, Ruckle HC, Lui PD. Perfusion sphincterometry for objective evaluation of postprostatectomy intrinsic sphincter deficiency. Urology. 1999;53(5):968-973. doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(98)00630-x
Tienza A, Robles JE, Hevia M, Algarra R, Diez-Caballero F, Pascual JI. Prevalence analysis of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy and influential preoperative factors in a single institution. Aging Male. 2018;21(1):24-30. doi:10.1080/13685538.2017.1369944
Barnoiu OS, Garcia Galisteo E, Baron Lopez F, et al. Prospective urodynamic model for prediction of urinary incontinence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urol Int. 2014;92(3):306-309. doi:10.1159/000354352
Onishi T, Sekito S, Terabe T, Shibahara T. A combination of findings obtained from pre- and postoperative imaging predict recovery of urinary continence after non-nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Anticancer Res. 2018;38(9):5525-5530. doi:10.21873/anticanres.12887
Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, et al. The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the standardisation Sub-Committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21(2):167-178. doi:10.1002/nau.10052
Reuvers SH, Groen J, Scheepe JR, Blok BF. Maximum urethral closure pressure increases after successful adjustable continence therapy (PROACT) for stress urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2016;94:188-192. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2016.04.019
Talavera JR, Martínez BB, Perez MS, Pisaca MFR, Díaz DC. Prediction of postradical prostatectomy urinary incontinence through the combination of the urethral pressure profile with electromyography of the urethral sphincter. Int Neurourol J. 2022;26(Suppl 1):S68-S75. doi:10.5213/inj.2142030.015
Harris N, Swithinbank L, Hayek SA, Yang Q, Abrams P. Can maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP) be used to predict outcome of surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence? Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30(8):1609-1612. doi:10.1002/nau.21111
Pfister C, Cappele O, Dunet F, Bugel H, Grise P. Assessment of the intrinsic urethral sphincter component function in postprostatectomy urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21(3):194-197. doi:10.1002/nau.10022
Majoros A, Bach D, Keszthelyi A, Hamvas A, Romics I. Urinary incontinence and voiding dysfunction after radical retropubic prostatectomy (prospective urodynamic study). Neurourol Urodyn. 2006;25(1):2-7. doi:10.1002/nau.20190
Haglind E, Carlsson S, Stranne J, et al. Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic versus open radical prostatectomy: a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial. Eur Urol. 2015;68(2):216-225. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.02.029
Palisaar JR, Roghmann F, Brock M, Löppenberg B, Noldus J, von Bodman C. Predictors of short-term recovery of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2015;33(6):771-779. doi:10.1007/s00345-014-1340-3
Sacco E, Prayer-Galetti T, Pinto F, et al. Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: incidence by definition, risk factors and temporal trend in a large series with a long-term follow-up. BJU Int. 2006;97(6):1234-1241. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06185.x
García Cortés Á, Colombás Vives J, Gutiérrez Castañé C, et al. What is the impact of post-radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence on everyday quality of life? Linking pad usage and International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short-Form (ICIQ-SF) for a COMBined definition (PICOMB definition). Neurourol Urodyn. 2021;40(3):840-847. doi:10.1002/nau.24631
Karantanis E, Fynes M, Moore KH, Stanton SL. Comparison of the ICIQ-SF and 24-hour pad test with other measures for evaluating the severity of urodynamic stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2004;15(2):111-116. doi:10.1007/s00192-004-1123-2
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205-213. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
Radadia KD, Farber NJ, Shinder B, Polotti CF, Milas LJ, Tunuguntla HSGR. Management of postradical prostatectomy urinary incontinence: a review. Urology. 2018;113:13-19. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2017.09.025
Lent V, Schultheis M. Volkswirtschaftliche Bedeutung der postoperativen Harninkontinenz [Economic importance of postoperative urinary incontinence]. Urologe A. 2015;54(11):1564-1568. doi:10.1007/s00120-015-3856-6
Dubbelman YD, Groen J, Wildhagen MF, Rikken B, Bosch JLHR. Urodynamic quantification of decrease in sphincter function after radical prostatectomy: relation to postoperative continence status and the effect of intensive pelvic floor muscle exercises: decreased sphincter function after radical prostatectomy. Neurourol Urodyn. 2012;31(5):646-651. doi:10.1002/nau.21243
Hammerer P, Huland H. Urodynamic evaluation of changes in urinary control after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 1997;157(1):233-236.
Kleinhans B, Gerharz E, Melekos M, Weingärtner K, Kälble T, Riedmiller H. Changes of urodynamic findings after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 1999;35(3):217-222. doi:10.1159/000019843
Latiff A. Preservation of bladder neck fibers in radical prostatectomy. Urology. 1993;41(6):566-567. doi:10.1016/0090-4295(93)90106-k
Freire MP, Weinberg AC, Lei Y, et al. Anatomic bladder neck preservation during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of technique and outcomes. Eur Urol. 2009;56(6):972-980. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2009.09.017
Deliveliotis C, Protogerou V, Alargof E, Varkarakis J. Radical prostatectomy: bladder neck preservation and puboprostatic ligament sparing--effects on continence and positive margins. Urology. 2002;60(5):855-858. doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(02)01956-8
Mungovan SF, Sandhu JS, Akin O, Smart NA, Graham PL, Patel MI. Preoperative membranous urethral length measurement and continence recovery following radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2017;71(3):368-378. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.023
Nyarangi-Dix JN, Tichy D, Hatiboglu G, Pahernik S, Tosev G, Hohenfellner M. Complete bladder neck preservation promotes long-term post-prostatectomy continence without compromising midterm oncological outcome: analysis of a randomised controlled cohort. World J Urol. 2018;36(3):349-355. doi:10.1007/s00345-017-2134-1
Grivas N, van der Roest R, Schouten D, et al. Quantitative assessment of fascia preservation improves the prediction of membranous urethral length and inner levator distance on continence outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(1):417-425. doi:10.1002/nau.23318
Machioka K, Kadono Y, Naito R, et al. Evaluating urinary incontinence before and after radical prostatectomy using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019;38(2):726-733. doi:10.1002/nau.23907
Krhut J, Zachoval R, Smith PP, et al. Pad weight testing in the evaluation of urinary incontinence: Pad Weight Testing. Neurourol Urodyn. 2014;33(5):507-510. doi:10.1002/nau.22436
Kadono Y, Nohara T, Kawaguchi S, et al. Investigating the mechanism underlying urinary continence recovery after radical prostatectomy: effectiveness of a longer urethral stump to prevent urinary incontinence. BJU Int. 2018;122(3):456-462. doi:10.1111/bju.14181