3.9 Article

Posterior and anterior fixation of the urethra during robotic prostatectomy improves early continence rates

期刊

出版社

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.3109/00365590903413627

关键词

Anastomosis; continence; daVinci robot; robotic prostatectomy; urethral fixation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To investigate whether posterior and anterior fixation of the vesicourethral anastomosis during robotic radical prostatectomy (RRP) helps to establish continence earlier. Material and methods. Forty-seven consecutive patients undergoing RRP were randomized into two groups. The first group received a typical Van Velthoven vesicourethral anastomosis and the second group a modified anastomosis with posterior and anterior fixation. In this group the posterior fibrous tissues of the sphincter were sutured to the residual Denonvilliers' fascia. The anastomosis with two running sutures started at the 6 o'clock position on the bladder neck and continued upwards. Two-step stitching was done on the upper half of the anastomosis to ensure good stabilization of the bladder: a small portion of urethral stump followed by a deep haemostatic stitch on the plexus. Continence, as measured by patient self-reporting of the number of pads used per 24 h, was assessed 7 weeks after catheter removal, by telephone interview. The use of no pads or one pad was defined as continent, two pads as moderate incontinence and more than two pads as severe incontinence. Results. At catheter removal, more patients in the fixation group were continent than in the Van Velthoven group [9/23 (39%) vs 3/24 (12.5%), p = 0.036]. At 7 weeks, continence was even better in the fixation group [15/23 (65%) vs 8/24 (33%), p = 0.029]. The mean pad usage was less in the fixation group (1.43 vs 2.25, p = 0.032). Conclusions. The posterior and anterior fixation of the vesicourethral anastomosis during RRP results in an intact sphincteric mechanism, because no stretch is applied to the urethra, resulting in earlier continence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据