4.6 Review

Minimising postoperative incontinence following radical prostatectomy: Considerations and evidence

期刊

EUROPEAN UROLOGY
卷 50, 期 5, 页码 903-913

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.08.009

关键词

prostate cancer; radical prostatectomy; bladder neck preservation; puboprostatic ligament; incontinence; continence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To review evidence regarding perioperative predictors of incontinence after radical prostatectomy (RP), related anatomic and patient factors, and surgical techniques used to minimise incontinence. Methods: A search of the Pubmed, Cancerlit, Cochrane, and ISI Web of Science databases was performed for the key words prostatectomy, incontinence, and continence. Relevant articles were reviewed, summarised, and analysed. Results: Enhanced understanding of pelvic anatomy applied to surgical approaches has improved continence rates following RP; however, incontinence remains a potential adverse outcome. Evidence suggests that increasing patient body weight and prostate volume are not associated with continence outcomes, but increasing patient age may be predictive. Behavioural therapy may aid in early return to continence although the timing of therapy and benefit of biofeedback assistance are unclear. Various surgical techniques are used to improve continence, but no evidence overwhelmingly supports any specific technique. At best, evidence supports early return to continence with some techniques. No technique significantly increased margin positivity solely at the experimental anatomic site. Conclusions: Despite enhanced knowledge of anatomy and improved surgical approach, incontinence persists as a potential adverse outcome of RP. Urologists may not find an evidence-based rationalisation for any particular surgical technique due to the nature of surgical series, variability in the definition of incontinence, and individual surgical skills, preferences, and techniques. Giving careful consideration to the trial design can potentially improve the resulting level of evidence. (c) 2006 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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