4.2 Article

Quality of life after radical prostatectomy in Japanese men: 2 year longitudinal study

期刊

JAPANESE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 35, 期 9, 页码 551-558

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyi145

关键词

prostate cancer; radical retropubic prostatectomy; longitudinal study; quality of life

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: We performed a 2 year longitudinal survey of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after radical retropubic prostatectomy (RP) in Japanese men with localized prostate cancer. Patients and methods: We measured 112 patients who underwent RP with SF-36 and University of California, Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index before and 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after surgery. Results: Patients who underwent RP showed problems in some domains of general HRQOL, but these problems diminished over time. Mental health significantly improved throughout the follow-up period. The urinary function substantially declined at 3 months and continued to recover gradually but never returned to the baseline. Urinary bother at 3 months showed a significant decrease, but at 6 months it returned to baseline. The data of sexual function and bother showed a substantially lower score after RP. Patients lost their sexual desire significantly throughout the post-operative period. After 12 months, the nerve sparing group had significantly better improvement in sexual function than the non-nerve sparing group and this improvement continued up to 2 years after operation. Conclusion: Despite reports of problems with sexuality and urinary continence, general HRQOL was mostly unaffected by RP after 6 months. RP had a favorable impact on mental health. Although urinary function did not completely return to the baseline level even at 2 years after RP, recovery from urinary bother was rapid. RP had serious consequences on libido, erectile function and sexual activity. In the second year, the sexual function of those who underwent RP with bilateral nerve sparing procedure continued to improve.

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

4.2
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