4.6 Article

Nerve sparing open radical retropubic prostatectomy - Does it have an impact on urinary continence?

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 176, 期 1, 页码 189-195

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00574-X

关键词

prostate; prostatectomy; urinary continence; bladder neck obstruction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We prospectively assessed the role of nerve sparing surgery on urinary continence after open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Materials and Methods: We evaluated a consecutive series of 536 patients who underwent open radical retropubic prostatectomy with attempted bilateral, unilateral or no nerve sparing, as defined by the surgeon, without prior radiotherapy at a minimum followup of 1 year with documented assessment of urinary continence status. Because outlet obstruction may influence continence rates, its incidence and management was also evaluated. Results: One year after surgery 505 of 536 patients (94.2%) were continent, 27 (5%) had grade I stress incontinence and 4 (0.8%) had grade II stress incontinence. Incontinence was found in 1 of 75 (1.3%), 11 of 322 (3.4%) and 19 of 139 patients (13.7%) with attempted bilateral, attempted unilateral and without attempted nerve sparing, respectively. The proportional differences were highly significant, favoring a nerve sparing technique (p < 0.0001). On multiple logistic regression analysis attempted nerve sparing was the only statistically significant factor influencing urinary continence after open radical retropubic prostatectomy (OR 4.77, 95% CI 2.18 to 10.44, p = 0.0001). Outlet obstruction at the anastomotic site in 33 of the 536 men (6.2%) developed at a median of 8 weeks (IQR 4 to 12) and was managed by dilation or an endoscopic procedure. Conclusions: The incidence of incontinence after open radical retropubic prostatectomy is low and continence is highly associated with a nerve sparing technique. Therefore, nerve sparing should be attempted in all patients if the principles of oncological. surgery are not compromised.

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