Early and late urinary continence outcomes after unilateral and bilateral nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A retrospective multicentre cohort study in Japan (the MSUG94 group).
nerve-sparing prostatectomy
propensity score analysis
urinary continence after prostatectomy
Journal
The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS
ISSN: 1478-596X
Titre abrégé: Int J Med Robot
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101250764
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Nov 2023
20 Nov 2023
Historique:
revised:
03
10
2023
received:
12
07
2023
accepted:
22
10
2023
medline:
21
11
2023
pubmed:
21
11
2023
entrez:
20
11
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The impact of unilateral and bilateral nerve-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (NS-RARP) procedures on continence and the time to continence recovery have not been established. We retrospectively reviewed a total of 2801 patients who underwent RARP in 9 institutions. Procedures were classified as NS or non-NS; NS procedures were further classified as unilateral or bilateral. The recovery of continence was analysed using propensity score matching method. The pad-free rates at 12 months after surgery were higher in the NS group (95% confidence interval of odds ratio, 1.06-1.51). Pad-free rates at all time points within 12 months of surgery did not significantly differ between the unilateral and bilateral NS groups. NS-RARP resulted in better urinary continence outcomes than non-NS-RARP in the first 12 months after surgery. Urinary recovery rates did not significantly differ between unilateral and bilateral NS-RARP.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The impact of unilateral and bilateral nerve-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (NS-RARP) procedures on continence and the time to continence recovery have not been established.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed a total of 2801 patients who underwent RARP in 9 institutions. Procedures were classified as NS or non-NS; NS procedures were further classified as unilateral or bilateral. The recovery of continence was analysed using propensity score matching method.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The pad-free rates at 12 months after surgery were higher in the NS group (95% confidence interval of odds ratio, 1.06-1.51). Pad-free rates at all time points within 12 months of surgery did not significantly differ between the unilateral and bilateral NS groups.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
NS-RARP resulted in better urinary continence outcomes than non-NS-RARP in the first 12 months after surgery. Urinary recovery rates did not significantly differ between unilateral and bilateral NS-RARP.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2593Informations de copyright
© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Kato D, Ebara S, Tatenuma T, et al. Short-term oncological and surgical outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a retrospective multicenter cohort study in Japan (the MSUG94 group). Asian J Endosc Surg. 2022;15(4):745-752. https://doi.org/10.1111/ases.13074
Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2009;55(5):1037-1063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.01.036
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):405-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.045
Collette ERP, Klaver SO, Lissenberg-Witte BI, van den Ouden D, van Moorselaar RJA, Vis AN. Patient reported outcome measures concerning urinary incontinence after robot assisted radical prostatectomy: development and validation of an online prediction model using clinical parameters, lower urinary tract symptoms and surgical experience. J Robot Surg. 2021;15(4):593-602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01145-9
Wei Y, Wu YP, Lin MY, et al. Impact of obesity on longterm urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis. BioMed Res Int. 2018;2018:8279523-8279529. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8279523
Schlomm T, Heinzer H, Steuber T, et al. Full functional length urethral sphincter preservation during radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2011;60(2):320-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.02.040
Lee YJ, Jung JW, Lee S, et al. Contemporary trends in radical prostatectomy and predictors of recovery of urinary continence in men aged over 70 years: comparisons between cohorts aged over 70 and less than 70 years. Asian J Androl. 2020;22(3):280-286. https://doi.org/10.4103/aja.aja_62_19
De Nunzio C, Pastore AL, Lombardo R, et al. The EORTC quality of life questionnaire predicts early and long-term incontinence in patients treated with robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: analysis of a large single center cohort. Urol Oncol. 2019;37(12):1006-1013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.06.024
Ma X, Tang K, Yang C, et al. Bladder neck preservation improves time to continence after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2016;7(41):67463-67475. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.11997
Walsh PC, Lepor H, Eggleston JC. Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: Anatomical and pathological considerations. Prostate. 1983;4(5):473-485. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.2990040506
Kaiho Y, Nakagawa H, Ikeda Y, et al. Intraoperative electrophysiological confirmation of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005;173(4):1139-1142. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000152316.51995.fc
Kim M, Park M, Pak S, et al. Integrity of the urethral sphincter complex, nerve-sparing, and long-term continence status after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;5(5):823-830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.04.021
Nguyen LN, Head L, Witiuk K, et al. The risks and benefits of cavernous neurovascular bundle sparing during radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2017;198(4):760-769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.3344
Reeves F, Preece P, Kapoor J, et al. Preservation of the neurovascular bundles is associated with improved time to continence after radical prostatectomy but not long-term continence rates: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015;68(4):692-704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.020
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(2):244-252. https://doi.org/10.1097/pas.0000000000000530
Buyyounouski MK, Choyke PL, McKenney JK, et al. Prostate cancer-major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer. J Clin. 2017;67(3):245-253. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21391
Prostate Cancer. NCCN Guidelines®; 2022. [cited 2022 Dec 27]. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf
Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982;5(6):649-655. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000421-198212000-00014
Hirasawa Y, Yoshioka K, Nasu Y, et al. Impact of surgeon and hospital volume on the safety of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study based on a national database. Urol Int. 2017;98(3):334-342. https://doi.org/10.1159/000460304
Tewari AK, Srivastava A, Huan MW, et al. Anatomical grades of nerve sparing: a risk-stratified approach to neuro-hammock sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). BJU Int. 2011;108:944-992.
Hernán MA, Robins JM. Causal Inference: What If. Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2020.
Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res. 2011;46(3):399-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.568786
Mottrie A, Van Migem P, De Naeyer G, Schatteman P, Carpentier P, Fonteyne E. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncologic and functional results of 184 cases. Eur Urol. 2007;52(3):746-750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.02.029
Novara G, Ficarra V, D'elia C, et al. Evaluating urinary continence and preoperative predictors of urinary continence after robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2010;184(3):1028-1033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.04.069
Lee DJ, Cheetham P, Badani KK. Predictors of early urinary continence after robotic prostatectomy. Can J Urol. 2010;17(3):5200-5205.
Choi WW, Freire MP, Soukup JR, et al. Nerve-sparing technique and urinary control after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2011;29(1):21-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-010-0601-z
Pick DL, Osann K, Skarecky D, Narula N, Finley DS, Ahlering TE. The impact of cavernosal nerve preservation on continence after robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2011;108(9):1492-1496. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2010.10015.x
Ko YH, Coelho RF, Chauhan S, et al. Factors affecting return of continence 3 months after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: analysis from a large, prospective data by a single surgeon. J Urol. 2012;187(1):190-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.09.037
Hurtes X, Rouprêt M, Vaessen C, et al. Anterior suspension combined with posterior reconstruction during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy improves early return of urinary continence: a prospective randomized multicentre trial. BJU Int. 2012;110(6):875-883. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2011.10849.x
Srivastava A, Chopra S, Pham A, et al. Effect of a risk-stratified grade of nerve-sparing technique on early return of continence after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2013;63(3):438-444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.07.009
Sammon JD, Sharma P, Trinh QD, Ghani KR, Sukumar S, Menon M. Predictors of immediate continence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2013;27(4):442-446. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2012.0312
Berg KD, Thomsen FB, Hvarness H, Christensen IJ, Iversen P. Early biochemical recurrence, urinary continence and potency outcomes following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Scand J Urol. 2014;48(4):356-366. https://doi.org/10.3109/21681805.2014.893534
Hinata N, Murakami G, Miyake H, et al. Urethral sphincter fatigue after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: descriptive questionnaire-based study and anatomic basis. Urology. 2014;84(1):144-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.01.046
Steineck G, Bjartell A, Hugosson J, et al. Degree of preservation of the neurovascular bundles during radical prostatectomy and urinary continence 1 year after surgery. Eur Urol. 2015;67(3):559-568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.011
Nyarangi-Dix JN, Tosev G, Damgov I, et al. Recovery of pad-free continence in elderly men does not differ from younger men undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for aggressive prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2020;38(2):351-360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02797-5
Li X, Zhang H, Jia Z, et al. Urinary continence outcomes of four years of follow-up and predictors of early and late urinary continence in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BMC Urol. 2020;20(1):29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-020-00601-w
Hikita K, Honda M, Shimizu R, et al. Longitudinal, 5-year long-term outcomes for urinary continence and quality of life after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in Japanese patients. Low Urin Tract Symptoms. 2022;14(3):178-185. https://doi.org/10.1111/luts.12421