Association between 3D membranous urethral parameters and urinary continence recovery after RARP.
Membranous urethral complex volume
Membranous urethral length
Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy
Three-dimensional model
Urinary continence
Journal
European journal of medical research
ISSN: 2047-783X
Titre abrégé: Eur J Med Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9517857
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Mar 2024
12 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
11
08
2023
accepted:
29
02
2024
medline:
13
3
2024
pubmed:
13
3
2024
entrez:
13
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To evaluate whether the urinary continence (UC) recovery after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) relates to the membranous urethral length (MUL) and the membranous urethral complex volume (MUV). 120 patients who underwent RARP were enrolled according to the different times of UC recovery and examined using prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before surgery. The membranous urethral (MU) parameters were measured using the three-Dimensional (3D) model reconstructed by holographic technology, such as total MUV (tMUV), exposed MUV (eMUV), full MUL (fMUL) and exposed MUL (eMUL). Statistical software SPSS 26.0 was used to analyze the data and compare the MU parameters and baseline data in different groups. Patients with larger tMUV (p = 0.038), eMUV (p = 0.003), longer fMUL (p = 0.025), eMUL (p = 0.044) had better UC after removal of the catheter, and eMUV (OR = 1.002, 95%CI = 1.001-1.004, p = 0.004) was a predictor; the patients with younger age (p = 0.021), lower VPSS score (p = 0.004) and larger eMUV (p = 0.012) and longer eMUL (p = 0.049) had better UC recovery one month after RARP while eMUV (OR = 1.002, 95% CI = 1.000-1.003, p = 0.008) and VPSS score (OR = 0.886, 95% CI = 0.806-0.973, p = 0.011) were independent risk factors; The patients with younger age (p = 0.018), larger tMUV (p = 0.029), eMUV (p = 0.016) had better UC recovery three months after RARP. eMUV (OR = 1.002, 95% CI = 1.000-1.004, p = 0.042) and age (OR = 0.904, 95% CI = 0.818-0.998, p = 0.046) were independent risk factors. This clinical study shows that patients with larger MUV and longer MUL can return to UC earlier after surgery. Among that, eMUV is a better predictor.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38475943
doi: 10.1186/s40001-024-01758-y
pii: 10.1186/s40001-024-01758-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
165Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Nambiar AK, Bosch R, Cruz F, et al. EAU Guidelines on Assessment and Nonsurgical Management of Urinary Incontinence. Eur Urol. 2018;73(4):596–609.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.12.031
pubmed: 29398262
Stanford JL, Feng Z, Hamilton AS, et al. Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. JAMA. 2000;283(3):354–60.
doi: 10.1001/jama.283.3.354
pubmed: 10647798
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):405–17.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.045
pubmed: 22749852
Nyarangi-Dix JN, Görtz M, Gradinarov G, et al. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: functional and early oncologic results in aggressive and locally advanced prostate cancer. BMC Urol. 2019;19(1):113.
doi: 10.1186/s12894-019-0550-9
pubmed: 31718600
pmcid: 6852736
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):936–44.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.09.031
pubmed: 27720536
Ohara E, Kawamorita N, Satake Y, et al. Minimal residual membranous urethral length and membranous urethral length predict poor recovery from incontinence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and after open radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol. 2022;29(12):1517–23.
doi: 10.1111/iju.15030
pubmed: 36094740
Giganti F, Rosenkrantz AB, Villeirs G, et al. The evolution of MRI of the prostate: the past, the present, and the future. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019;213(2):384–96.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.18.20796
pubmed: 31039022
Rosenkrantz AB, Ayoola A, Hoffman D, et al. The learning curve in prostate MRI interpretation: self-directed learning versus continual reader feedback. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(3):W92–100.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.16876
pubmed: 28026201
Porpiglia F, Fiori C, Checcucci E, Amparore D, Bertolo R. Hyperaccuracy three-dimensional reconstruction is able to maximize the efficacy of selective clamping during robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for complex renal masses. Eur Urol. 2018;74(5):651–60.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.12.027
pubmed: 29317081
Wake N, Bjurlin MA, Rostami P, Chandarana H, Huang WC. Three-dimensional printing and augmented reality: enhanced precision for robotic assisted partial nephrectomy. Urology. 2018;116:227–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2017.12.038
pubmed: 29801927
Shirk JD, Thiel DD, Wallen EM, et al. Effect of 3-dimensional virtual reality models for surgical planning of robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy on surgical outcomes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(9):e1911598.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.11598
pubmed: 31532520
pmcid: 6751754
Shirk JD, Reiter R, Wallen EM, et al. Effect of 3-dimensional, virtual reality models for surgical planning of robotic prostatectomy on trifecta outcomes: a randomized clinical trial. J Urol. 2022;208(3):618–25.
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002719
pubmed: 35848770
Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):618–29.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003
pubmed: 27568654
Patel VR, Sivaraman A, Coelho RF, et al. Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2011;59(5):702–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.01.032
pubmed: 21296482
Wagaskar VG, Mittal A, Sobotka S, et al. Hood technique for robotic radical prostatectomy-preserving periurethral anatomical structures in the space of retzius and sparing the pouch of douglas, enabling early return of continence without compromising surgical margin rates. Eur Urol. 2021;80(2):213–21.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.044
pubmed: 33067016
Ahlering TE, Gordon A, Morales B, Skarecky DW. Preserving continence during robotic prostatectomy. Curr Urol Rep. 2013;14(1):52–8.
doi: 10.1007/s11934-012-0295-4
pubmed: 23239360
Kotamarti S, Williams T, Silver M, Silver DA, Schulman AA. Rethinking the need for overnight admission after robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Robot Surg. 2020;14(6):913–5.
doi: 10.1007/s11701-020-01115-1
pubmed: 32602024
pmcid: 7322390
Sridhar AN, Abozaid M, Rajan P, et al. Surgical techniques to optimize early urinary continence recovery post robot assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep. 2017;18(9):71.
doi: 10.1007/s11934-017-0717-4
pubmed: 28718165
pmcid: 5514172
Guzelsoy M, Aydos MM, Coban S, Turkoglu AR, Acibucu K, Demirci H. Comparison of the effectiveness of IPSS and VPSS without any help in LUTS patients: a prospective study. Aging Male. 2018;21(3):193–9.
doi: 10.1080/13685538.2017.1414178
pubmed: 29228847
Haga N, Ogawa S, Yabe M, et al. Association between postoperative pelvic anatomic features on magnetic resonance imaging and lower tract urinary symptoms after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2014;84(3):642–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.04.044
pubmed: 25059593
Nyarangi-Dix JN, Radtke JP, Hadaschik B, Pahernik S, Hohenfellner M. Impact of complete bladder neck preservation on urinary continence, quality of life and surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a randomized, controlled, single blind trial. J Urol. 2013;189(3):891–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.082
pubmed: 23017512
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.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.020
pubmed: 25454614
Schlomm T, Heinzer H, Steuber T, et al. Full functional-length urethral sphincter preservation during radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2011;60(2):320–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.02.040
pubmed: 21458913
Paparel P, Akin O, Sandhu JS, et al. Recovery of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy: association with urethral length and urethral fibrosis measured by preoperative and postoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Urol. 2009;55(3):629–37.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.08.057
pubmed: 18801612
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):368–78.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.023
pubmed: 27394644
Ko YH, Huynh LM, See K, Lall C, Skarecky D, Ahlering TE. Impact of surgically maximized versus native membranous urethral length on 30-day and long-term pad-free continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Prostate Int. 2020;8(2):55–61.
doi: 10.1016/j.prnil.2019.12.005
pubmed: 32647641
pmcid: 7336015